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.

85 results for “TDS”+ Section 12Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi130Mumbai97Bangalore85Ahmedabad29Lucknow28Kolkata28Pune28Jaipur18Chennai16Visakhapatnam13Indore13Rajkot6Chandigarh6Hyderabad6Amritsar5Jodhpur3Karnataka3Telangana3Dehradun2Surat2Panaji1Guwahati1Punjab & Haryana1Raipur1Rajasthan1Cochin1Jabalpur1Agra1Nagpur1

Key Topics

Section 148104Section 2(15)71Section 12A65Section 1165Section 234E48Section 14745Addition to Income44Section 20040Exemption38TDS

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), BANGALORE

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessees for A

ITA 1476/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Balaram R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K. Srihari, Addl. CIT (D.R.)
Section 12ASection 194ASection 196ASection 197(1)Section 2(15)Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS) under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') in the belief that it was not liable to deduct tax since KIADB was exempt from tax, being registered under Section 12A

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5

37
Section 234A24
Deduction24

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

12A of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2(iii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹39,99,359.00 by treating certain expenses as not allowable as an application of income. 9.1 During the assessment proceedings

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

12A of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 9. The issue raised by the assessee in Ground No. 2(iii) is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹39,99,359.00 by treating certain expenses as not allowable as an application of income. 9.1 During the assessment proceedings

MUDDAYYA AARAYYA HIREMATH,YADGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , YADGIR

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1993/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

TDS has been deducted from the contract receipts of the assessee and on interest from bank also and there is huge cash deposit in the Saving Bank account and assessee has not filed return of income. During the pandemic period, notices were issued to the assessee and there was no response from the assessee side properly. It is noticed from

MUDDAYYA AMARAYYA HIREMATH,YADGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YADGIR

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1996/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

TDS has been deducted from the contract receipts of the assessee and on interest from bank also and there is huge cash deposit in the Saving Bank account and assessee has not filed return of income. During the pandemic period, notices were issued to the assessee and there was no response from the assessee side properly. It is noticed from

MUDDAYYA AMARAYYA HIREMATH,YADGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, YADGIR

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1995/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

TDS has been deducted from the contract receipts of the assessee and on interest from bank also and there is huge cash deposit in the Saving Bank account and assessee has not filed return of income. During the pandemic period, notices were issued to the assessee and there was no response from the assessee side properly. It is noticed from

MUDDAYYA AMARAYYA HIREMATH,YADGIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , YADGIR

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1994/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tarun Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 144Section 148Section 194ASection 194CSection 271B

TDS has been deducted from the contract receipts of the assessee and on interest from bank also and there is huge cash deposit in the Saving Bank account and assessee has not filed return of income. During the pandemic period, notices were issued to the assessee and there was no response from the assessee side properly. It is noticed from

M/S. BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1864/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 40a

TDS was not deducted on sub-contractors work expenses, consultancy charges, fabrication expenses, labour and vehicle hire charges aggregating to Rs.8,65,14,782/-.Further the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure was debited in respect of Student Welfare Forum Scholarship, Expenditure on Bidar Utsav, Outstanding VAT and return of ACA Fund aggregating to Rs.1,63,38,786/- since

M/S BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA ,BIDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3442/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 40a

TDS was not deducted on sub-contractors work expenses, consultancy charges, fabrication expenses, labour and vehicle hire charges aggregating to Rs.8,65,14,782/-.Further the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure was debited in respect of Student Welfare Forum Scholarship, Expenditure on Bidar Utsav, Outstanding VAT and return of ACA Fund aggregating to Rs.1,63,38,786/- since

M/S. BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA,BIDAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 1860/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 40a

TDS was not deducted on sub-contractors work expenses, consultancy charges, fabrication expenses, labour and vehicle hire charges aggregating to Rs.8,65,14,782/-.Further the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure was debited in respect of Student Welfare Forum Scholarship, Expenditure on Bidar Utsav, Outstanding VAT and return of ACA Fund aggregating to Rs.1,63,38,786/- since

M/S BIDAR NIRMITHI KENDRA ,BIDAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 , BIDAR

In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3443/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 264Section 40a

TDS was not deducted on sub-contractors work expenses, consultancy charges, fabrication expenses, labour and vehicle hire charges aggregating to Rs.8,65,14,782/-.Further the Assessing Officer found that the expenditure was debited in respect of Student Welfare Forum Scholarship, Expenditure on Bidar Utsav, Outstanding VAT and return of ACA Fund aggregating to Rs.1,63,38,786/- since

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 74/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

TDS. • At the time of withdrawal of this bearer cheque by the sub- contractor, the staff/partner of the assessee accompany the sub-contractor to the bank and take possession of the amount withdrawn. These amounts were once again utilised in the same manner as described amount. b) Payment made to counter parties other than sub- contractors. • Payments

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 75/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

TDS. • At the time of withdrawal of this bearer cheque by the sub- contractor, the staff/partner of the assessee accompany the sub-contractor to the bank and take possession of the amount withdrawn. These amounts were once again utilised in the same manner as described amount. b) Payment made to counter parties other than sub- contractors. • Payments

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 76/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

TDS. • At the time of withdrawal of this bearer cheque by the sub- contractor, the staff/partner of the assessee accompany the sub-contractor to the bank and take possession of the amount withdrawn. These amounts were once again utilised in the same manner as described amount. b) Payment made to counter parties other than sub- contractors. • Payments

M/S. TEACHERS ACADEMY EDUCATION TRUST,BANGALORE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/BANG/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year : N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 133ASection 2(15)

section 40A(3) does not apply to charitable trusts. (e) With regard to the allegation in the survey report that the applicant trust also failed to deduct TDS from the appropriate expenditure debited in the profit and loss account in the referred AYs, the assessee submitted that the TDS Failure is also due to ignorance as to the TDS provisions

GRAMA VIDYODAYA SANGHA (REGD),MYSURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 345/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K. Kotresh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 234A

12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee got registered u/s 12AA of the Act on 31.01.2020 relevant to A.Y. 2020-21. 2.1 The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2018-19 in Form No ITR- 7 in the status of Association of Persons electronically on 9.10.2018. In the said ITR-7, the assessee

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 163/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

TDS), Goa, supporting it's claim that the delay was on account of pending application under section 119 of the Act. However, the appellant failed to respond to both the notices. The last date for submitting the details as per the latest notice was 24/2021. There is no response from the appellant in this regard till date

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

TDS), Goa, supporting it's claim that the delay was on account of pending application under section 119 of the Act. However, the appellant failed to respond to both the notices. The last date for submitting the details as per the latest notice was 24/2021. There is no response from the appellant in this regard till date

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

TDS), Goa, supporting it's claim that the delay was on account of pending application under section 119 of the Act. However, the appellant failed to respond to both the notices. The last date for submitting the details as per the latest notice was 24/2021. There is no response from the appellant in this regard till date

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

TDS), Goa, supporting it's claim that the delay was on account of pending application under section 119 of the Act. However, the appellant failed to respond to both the notices. The last date for submitting the details as per the latest notice was 24/2021. There is no response from the appellant in this regard till date