BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

569 results for “TDS”+ Section 02clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,253Delhi1,072Bangalore569Chennai351Kolkata338Ahmedabad176Hyderabad174Pune163Jaipur126Chandigarh104Raipur98Karnataka89Indore70Surat45Lucknow40Cuttack31Nagpur29Visakhapatnam26Guwahati23Rajkot22Ranchi22Agra21Allahabad21Patna18Jodhpur18Amritsar13Cochin13Jabalpur11Dehradun8Telangana7Varanasi7SC6Panaji6Calcutta5Rajasthan4Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income63Section 10A54Section 143(3)54Section 234E48Disallowance47Section 4046TDS39Deduction36Transfer Pricing34Section 200A

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

Showing 1–20 of 569 · Page 1 of 29

...
28
Section 92C25
Section 234B25

02,26,125 under section 40(a)(i) for the impugned reason that TDS under section 195 has not been

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

02,19,330 in view of certain additions / disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment dt.11.12.2009 for Assessment Year 2006-07, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (Appeals)-3, Bangalore. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed off the appeal vide order dt.31.03.2015, allowing the assessee partial relief. 3. Aggrieved by the order

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09 is dismissed

ITA 1251/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-1 (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

02,814. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the case was subsequently taken up for scrutiny. The assessment was completed under Section143(3) of the Act, vide order dt.31.12.2010 wherein the assessee's income under normal computation was determined at Rs.336,64,93,391 in view

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), HUBLI vs. GENERAL MANAGAR,, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue as well as the Cross-objection of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 1192/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Mar 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Jason P. Boazi.T.A No.1191 To 1194/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 To 2012-13) The Income Tax Officer (Tds) 3Rd Floor, Cr Bldg.Annexe, Navanagar, Hubli-580 025 .. Appellant Vs. The Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gf, Urban Bank Building, 1 Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubli 580 020 .. Respondent Pan : Aaaah0120P C.O.Nos. 25 To 28/Bang/2015 In I.T.A No.1191 To 1194/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10 To 2012-13) The Hubli Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Gf, Urban Bank Building, 1 Sir Siddappa Kambli Road, Hubli 580 020 .. Cross-Objector Pan : Aaaah0120P Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) 3Rd Floor, Cr Bldg.Annexe, Navanagar, Hubli-580 025 .. Respondent Assessee By : Shri. G.V.Desai, Ca 1

For Appellant: Shri. G.V.Desai, CAFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 194Section 194ASection 194A(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 51

02. Assessee is a Co-operative Bank carrying on the business of banking. The appeals and cross-objections arise out of proceedings initiated u/s.201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). In the course of proceedings u/s.201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act, the AO noticed that the Assessee had paid interest on deposits from members

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S CITIZEN CO-OP BANK LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 861/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. N. V. Vasudevan & Shri. Abraham P. George

For Appellant: Shri. Muralikrishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT – DR-I
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(i)Section 194A(3)(v)Section 194A(3)(viia)

TDS), Circle -1(1), Bangalore ..Appellant PAN : BLRT01604B v. M/s. The Citizen Co-op. Bank Ltd, No.65/1A, I Main Road, D- Block, II Stage, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010 ..Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Muralikrishna, CA Revenue by : Shri. G. R. Reddy, CIT – DR-I Heard on : 06.01.2016 Pronounced on : 08 .01.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 254/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 251/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 253/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 249/BANG/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 252/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 245/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 250/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 248/BANG/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , UDUPI , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 255/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 243/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 247/BANG/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS under section 192 of the Act, giving rise to double taxation on the same transaction. 4. Disallowance of corporate social responsibility expenses claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act 4.1 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount of INR 2,81 ,50,000 claimed as deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S. MANYATA PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE EMBASSY OFFICE PARKS PRIVATE LIMITED ), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, while the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 573/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CAFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 154Section 232

02,70,802 is the TDS ITA Nos. 548 & 573/Bang/2022 Page 5 of 10 credit in the name of PEPPL. The ld AR also submitted that the AO while passing the order u/s. 143(3) has considered only the TDS credit which is in the name of the assessee and did not consider the TDS credit in the name