KPTCL Davangere v. ITO

170 ITD 587Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#9004 most cited
12

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2023 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 10(10AA)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 264Section 10(10AA)(i)Section 10(10AA)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

section 10(10aa)section 10salarysection 143(1)opportunity of being heardprescribedindiasection 250total incomedocumentnfacsection 143

Judgments citing KPTCL Davangere v. ITO

SATISH CHANDRA TYAGI,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8770/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2019-20] Satish Chandra Tyagi, Commissioner Of Income Tax A-601, Lakevie Apptt. Plot (Appeals), Hans Bhawan, No.17, Paschim Vihar, Vs Wing,-2, I. P. Estate, Sunder Vihar West, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110087 Pan-Abgpt2521E Appellant Respondent Appellant/Assessee By Shri Satish Chandra Tyagi, Assessee In Person. Respondent/Revenue By Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 Order Per Amitabh Shukla, Am

Section 10Section 154

…s which are classified as 'State Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA) (i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

KAMLESH TYAGI,DELHI vs. OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEAL, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8789/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8789/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Kamlesh Tyagi, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, A-601, Lake View Apptt., Paschim Income Tax Officer, Vihar, Sunder Vihar, West Delhi, Ward-67(1), New Delhi-110087 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadpt4266G Assessee By: Sh. Kamlesh Tyagi (Individual) Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Hyderabad’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1066275720(1) Dated 30.06.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Kamlesh Tyagi (Individual)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

SUNIL KUMAR SAXENA,NOIDA vs. DELHI, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8780/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 8780/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Sunil Kumar Saxena, Vs Cit(A)/Nfac, Flat No. N6-403, Plot No. Gh-8B, Delhi Tech Zone-Iv Are, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.-201306 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acmps0313C Assessee By: Sh. Sunil K. Saxena (Individual) Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.01.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051074646(1) Dated 21.03.2023, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil K. Saxena (Individual)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

SUDHAKAR GUNDAPPA PALDEWAR,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1781/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri SudhakarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje- JCIT
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 154

…s which are classified as 'State Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory 6 corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA) (i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10…

VIJAY PAL GUPTA,DWARKA, DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5915/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa, 98-Lig Flat Dda, Flat Pocket New Delhi 3, Paschimpur, Paschim Vihar, West Delhi, Delhi Pan: Aaapw3032C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa (Assessee) Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr With Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta, Vs. Ito, B-203, Swami Dayanand Ward-67(1), Apartments, Plot No.5, New Delhi Sector-6, Dwarka, Delhi Pan: Acopg6634J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta (Assessee) Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order The Instant Two Appeals Involve The Twin Assessees, Namely, Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa & Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta. They Have Filed

Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

RAJIV KUMAR WADHWA,WEST DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5897/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa, 98-Lig Flat Dda, Flat Pocket New Delhi 3, Paschimpur, Paschim Vihar, West Delhi, Delhi Pan: Aaapw3032C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa (Assessee) Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr With Assessment Year: 2021-22 Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta, Vs. Ito, B-203, Swami Dayanand Ward-67(1), Apartments, Plot No.5, New Delhi Sector-6, Dwarka, Delhi Pan: Acopg6634J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta (Assessee) Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29.10.2025 Order The Instant Two Appeals Involve The Twin Assessees, Namely, Sh. Rajiv Kumar Wadhwa & Sh. Vijay Pal Gupta. They Have Filed

Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

ASHOK ARORA,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) DELHI, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2942/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 2942/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2021-22 Ashok Arora, Vs Income Tax Officer, 281, First Floor, Sector-51, Ward-1(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapa0425F Assessee By: None Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2021-22, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A), Kanpur’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1073670355(1) Dated 25.02.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

GOBIND KHATTAR,DELHI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, NASHIK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4414/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 4414/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Gobind Khattar, Vs Addl./Jcit(A)-1, B-903, Ashadeep Society, Plot No. Income Tax Office Nashik, 3B, Sector-2, Dwarka, Maharashtra-422001 New Delhi-110075 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aiqpk8069D Assessee By: Sh. Govind Khattar (Assessee) Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21, Arises Against The Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Nashik’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1061417389(1) Dated 23.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Govind Khattar (Assessee)For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

NEELAM GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, VISAKHAPATNAM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam Gupta (Assessee)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

SHYAM SUNDER SAHNI,NEW DELHI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC BENGALURU, BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as 'State' Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected." 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

RAM CHARAN GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), ITO WD 4(2) , JPR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary(Addl. CIT)
Section 10Section 143(1)

…which are classified as ‘State’ Assume the status of Central government and State Government employees. Accordingly the petition is rejected.” 5.2.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/s ITO (2018), the Hon’ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No. 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib.) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and therefore exemption under S. 10(10AA)(i) was not available and assesse was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.2.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…

DEVENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,AJMER vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 17/JPR/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 May 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Ld. Cit (A), Who Also Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Taking Into Consideration

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10

…s which are classified as ‘State' assume the status of Central Government and State Government employees, Accordingly the petition is rejected," 5.1.3 Further, in the case of KPTCL Davangere V/S ITO (2018), the Hon'ble ITAT, Bangalore vide its order in ITA No 170 ITD 587 (Bang.) (Trib) has held that assessee being a statutory corporation its employees could not be regarded as State or Central Government employees and, therefore, exemption under S.10(10AA)(i) was not available and assessee was liable to deduct tax at source. 5.1.4 In view of the above, the action of the AO of restricting the exemption u/s 10(10AA)…