Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

2,355 results for “TDS”+ Section 11(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi4,585 Mumbai4,573 Bangalore2,355 Chennai1,680 Pune1,241 Kolkata1,189 Ahmedabad890 Hyderabad823 Indore702 Jaipur535 Chandigarh456 Raipur446 Cochin427 Karnataka308 Nagpur306 Visakhapatnam289 Surat270 Cuttack246 Rajkot193 Lucknow150 Amritsar116 Jabalpur103 Ranchi97 Jodhpur86 Dehradun76 Agra73 Patna61 Allahabad60 Panaji59 Guwahati55 Telangana44 SC21 Varanasi14 Calcutta13 Kerala13 Himachal Pradesh8 Rajasthan6 Punjab & Haryana3 J&K3 Uttarakhand3 Orissa2 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)56 Addition to Income55 Section 4047 TDS47 Deduction43 Disallowance40 Section 20137 Section 201(1)34 Section 10A34 Section 250

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

section 11 of the Act. the details of such expenses stand as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Interest On TDS 803723.00 2

Showing 1–20 of 2,355 · Page 1 of 118

...

24

Section 143(1)23

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

section 11 of the Act. the details of such expenses stand as under: S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Interest On TDS 803723.00 2

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR

Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 1962/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 948/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1,, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2089/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2086/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 947/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a company for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India

CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 937/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Ms. Brinda Rameswaran, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a company for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 563/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

section 11(5) of the Act by investing the accumulation made u/s 11(2) of the Act in the specified Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 584 & 563/Bang/2022 investments has rightly claimed the accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act and same is to be allowed to the Appellant. 3. The denial of credit for TDS

RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 584/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Mrs. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(23)(C)Section 11(2)Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 154Section 234B

section 11(5) of the Act by investing the accumulation made u/s 11(2) of the Act in the specified Page 3 of 15 ITA Nos. 584 & 563/Bang/2022 investments has rightly claimed the accumulation u/s 11(2) of the Act and same is to be allowed to the Appellant. 3. The denial of credit for TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 211(2)

11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a company for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1499/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)

Section 115JSection 211(2)

11 of the Acquisition Act which deals a corresponding new bank treated as Indian company for the purpose of Income Tax, however, Clause (b) in Sub-Section 2 to Section 115JB does not permit treatment of such bank as a company for the purpose of the said clause, because it should be ITA No.424/Mum/2020 & 3740/Mum/2018 The Union Bank of India

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 499/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 544/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 496/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS under section 192 in respect of all the salaries of the seconded employees, in respect of which costs were reimbursed to the IBM foreign companies; Thereafter, reassessment/ assessment proceedings were conducted on the IBM foreign entities and reassessment orders under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act/ assessment order under section