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.

2,021 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(14)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,878Delhi3,853Bangalore2,021Chennai1,379Kolkata884Pune558Hyderabad505Ahmedabad445Jaipur327Raipur315Indore297Karnataka272Cochin245Chandigarh233Nagpur210Surat174Visakhapatnam164Rajkot114Lucknow82Cuttack72Amritsar71Ranchi46Patna41Jodhpur41Dehradun40Telangana33Panaji31Agra31Guwahati30SC19Allahabad15Jabalpur14Kerala12Calcutta10Himachal Pradesh8Varanasi7Rajasthan6Uttarakhand3Punjab & Haryana2Orissa2J&K2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income61Section 143(3)50Disallowance42Deduction39Section 4034Section 14832TDS30Section 25025Section 43B22Section 147

INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS),WARD-18(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S SYMPHONY MARKETING SOLUTIONS I P LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1252/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, Advocate
Section 10(14)Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)

10(14). The appellant could not be said to be in default within the meaning of section 201(1) for not including such attempt allowance for the purpose of section 192. The Assessing Officer is directed to exclude such amounts of per diem allowances form the amounts liable to TDS

Showing 1–20 of 2,021 · Page 1 of 102

...
21
Section 20118
Section 1118

KANTILAL JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 579/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 234BSection 234CSection 250

14,78,000 over total premium paid for all 5 years amounting to Rs. 10,62,750/- was chargeable to tax. 2.8 Further, in the present case, TDS equivalent to 1% of the maturity proceeds was deduction under section

M/S. A. SHAMA RAO FOUNDATION,MANGALORE vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANAJI, GOA

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru
Section 10Section 12A

14 of 31 • It is also evident from the order of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji that the assessee never objected to the jurisdiction of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji in holding the proceedings to withdraw recognition u/s 10(23C)(vi). • As per un-numbered 15th proviso to Sec. 10(23C), if an institution is approved

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI VIDYAPEETHA TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while cross objection by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2707/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S Sukumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)

10. Before CIT(A), the Assessee submitted that the conclusion drawn by the AO are not factually correct. The Assessee submitted that it had not violated the provision of Karnataka Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fees) Act of 1984. He drew attention of the CIT(A) to the observations of the AO in the order of assessment wherein the complaint

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 126/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 118/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 117/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 128/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 129/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 127/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 121/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 119/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 125/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 124/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 122/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 123/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 130/BANG/2021[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 120/BANG/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS BPM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.116 To 130/Bang/2021 Assessment Years:2018-19 To 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act. The claim: The use of software is not royalty within the I T Act 53. I find that the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung (Supra) is applicable in the facts of the case. Accordingly, the claim that use of software

INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

Accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 71/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A Nos.61 To 98/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2017-18 (Excluding March 2016)

For Appellant: Shri H. Padamchand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195ASection 248Section 249

section 14(a)(iii) and 14(b)(ii) of the Copyright Act.” 9. The final conclusion of the CIT(A) on the issue is in paragraph 398 of his order which reads thus: “In view of the above, the argument of the appellant that consideration paid for purchase of software, access to various databases, cloud computing, cloud space hiring, access