M/S. WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored issues regarding contradictory computation sheets and dividend distribution tax to the AO for verification. It also directed the AO to delete the disallowance under Section 115BBD as the assessee did not receive dividend income. The claim for TDS credit was also restored to the AO for examination.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Wipro Limited, appealed against an assessment order concerning AY 2015-16. The appeal raised several issues including contradictory computation sheets, dividend distribution tax demand, capitalization of salaries and wages for software development, and disallowance under Section 115BBD.
What were the issues?
Whether the AO was justified in invoking Section 115BBD when no dividend income was received by the assessee, and whether TDS credit should be allowed on the basis of additional certificates.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(27)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd.1,558 citing367 ITR 466 · 2014 · SC · Read judgment
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT1,183 citing328 ITR 81 · 2010 · HC
- CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.818 citing204 Taxmann 321 · 2012
- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. DCIT683 citing394 ITR 449 · 2017 · SC · Read judgment
- Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT622 citing3 Taxmann 69 · 1980 · SC
- CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.461 citing345 ITR 494 · 2012 · HC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody386 citing115 ITR 519 · 1978 · SC
- Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. v. CIT326 citing344 ITR 259 · 2012 · Read judgment
- CIT v. Vatika Township (P.) Ltd.294 citing49 Taxmann.com 249 · 2014 · SC · Read judgment
- Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT275 citing177 ITR 377 · 1989 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food Pvt. Ltd.229 citing304 ITR 308 · 2008 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Wipro Ltd.140 citing355 ITR 284 · 2011 · HC
- CIT v. Shriram Honda Power Equipment & Ors.126 citing289 ITR 475 · 2007 · HC
- Wipro Ltd. v. DCIT122 citing382 ITR 179 · 2016 · HC
- CIT v. IBM India Ltd.88 citing357 ITR 88 · 2013 · HC
- CIT v. Sudarshan Chemicals Industries Ltd.59 citing245 ITR 769 · 2000 · HC
- 249 and CIT v. Gold Coin Health Foods (P.) Ltd.55 citing172 Taxmann 386 · 2008 · SC
- Madras v. Canara Workshops P.Ltd.55 citing161 ITR 320 · 1986 · SC
- CIT v. Priya Village Roadshows Ltd.52 citing185 Taxmann 44 · 2011 · HC
- CIT v. Amritaben R. Shah37 citing238 ITR 777 · 1999 · HC
- Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. v. CIT34 citing390 ITR 271 · 2017 · HC
- CIT v. Carborandum Universal Ltd.31 citing177 Taxmann 347 · 1984 · HC
- CIT v. Tejas Networks India (P.) Ltd.14 citing52 Taxmann.com 513 · 2014 · HC · Read judgment
- Navin Bharat Industries Ltd. v. DCIT14 citing90 ITD 1 · 2004 · ITAT
- CIT v. Manganese Ore India Ltd.8 citing19 Taxmann 27 · 1984
- 2 ITR-OL 4994 citing2 ITR-OL 499 · 2014
- CIT v. Tata Elxi Ltd.4 citing204 Taxmann.com 321
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI B.R. BASKARAN
PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31-10-2019 passed by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short] for assessment year 2015-16 in pursuance of directions given by Ld Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).
The assessee is engaged in different types of business activities, viz., software development services and IT services; manufacture of Vanaspati/Hydro generated oils; toilet soaps; lighting products; pharmaceuticals & Neutraceutical products; leather
IT(TP)A No.2556/Ban
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 115BBD
- ACIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs Tata Projects Limited, MumbaiITA 3401/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 3489/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Apr 2026AY 2021-22
- Upama Roy, Karnataka vs Income Tax Officer-Ward-5(3) (4), KarnatakaITA 1970/BANG/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed1 Apr 2026AY 2018-2019
- Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Chennai vs ACIT, Corporate Range -1, ChennaiITTPA 51/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
- Bahwan Cybertek Private Limited, Chennai vs ACIT, Corporate Range -1, ChennaiITTPA 50/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026