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.

29 results for “TDS”+ Section 148Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai74Ahmedabad44Delhi35Hyderabad34Bangalore29Jaipur25Visakhapatnam25Pune19Chennai16Kolkata10Chandigarh9Raipur7Agra6Lucknow6Rajkot4Nagpur4Cochin2Jabalpur2Cuttack1Amritsar1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 14896Section 14761Section 148A31Addition to Income16Section 14413TDS13Section 153A12Reopening of Assessment12Section 143(3)11Section 271B

RAGHAVAN NAMBATH MENON,BENGALURU vs. ITO, WARD INTL. TAXATION 1(2), BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU

In the result, I pass the following:-

ITA 278/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Suresh Muthukrishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT D.R
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 68

148A of the Act. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 19/04/2022. In response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act, the assessee filed his return of income on 18/05/2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,91,920/-. Accordingly, the notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued along

Showing 1–20 of 29 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 699
Deduction8

ARUN DURAISWAMY,MYSORE, KARNATAKA vs. ITO, INTL. TAXATION WARD 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: CA Deepak Gunashekar, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69Section 69C

148A of the Act and accordingly a notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 29/04/2022. The AO observed that no ROI was filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act; however, the assessee claimed that he had filed his return on 25/03/2024 and the copy of the return of income (ITR-V) and the computation

INDIRA RAMAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 507/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shamala D.D., Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 148Section 234ASection 56(2)Section 69

TDS Statement – Payment of 1,55,64,500 194IA(P) consideration for purchase of immovable property (Section 194IA) 3. Notice u/s 148A

VAZHOOR SUDARSANAN THAMPI,THRISSUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), WARD-2(1), BENGALURU

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 893/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan Ka. Y. 2015-16 Appellant Respondent Vazhoor Sudarshanan The Income Tax Officer Thampi International Taxation Vazhoor House, Ward 2 (1) T C 5/1892Valappad Bangalore Vallapad Beach Thrissur Kerala 680567 Pan Afxpt6193D For Appellant Shri Sidhesh N Gadi, Ca For Respondent Dr. Divya K J Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 19-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28-08-2025

Section 142Section 143Section 144Section 144CSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69

148A (d) of the act was passed on 19/4/2022 and accordingly notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 19/4/2022. Assessee failed to respond. Further ld AO issued notice under section 142 (1) through the ITBA portal on various dates but same was not responded to. Accordingly, the learned assessing officer proceeded to pass a draft assessment order

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC.,,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 833/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

TDS. Since present assessee being foreign company, it has not availed any entity for these two assessment years. The assessment was reopened vide notice dated 30.6.2021 for both assessment years after following the due procedure of section 148A

M/S. STEER AMERICA INC., ,UNITED STATES vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE -1(2) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 832/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri Vasanth Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Anjala Sahu, D.R
Section 144CSection 147Section 148

TDS. Since present assessee being foreign company, it has not availed any entity for these two assessment years. The assessment was reopened vide notice dated 30.6.2021 for both assessment years after following the due procedure of section 148A

RANGSONS SCHUSTER TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MANDYA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)& TPS , MYSORE

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

ITA 1490/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. Rangsons Schuster Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Plot No.9, Hebbal Ii Nd Phase Viadb Circle – 1(1) & Tps, Industrial Area, Survey No.36, Belagolahobli, Mysore. Srirangapatna, H.O. Shrirangapattana, Mandya– 571 438,Karnataka. Pan : Aafcr 4493 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Subramanian S, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 195Section 195BSection 40

section 148A(d) of the Act, it was noted that assessee had remitted payment of Rs.49,39,468/- during the Financial Year 2017-18 to the foreign company M/s. Schuster Aviation Tubes Ltd., (SATL) and not deducted TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. NUTRICRAFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 298/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CA
Section 143(3)Section 148ASection 153CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40

148A – 206, order giving effect, – 44, rectification – 48, modified assessment orders – 11, verification – 26, deemed information – 6, and notice under section 153C – 7 were pending with him. Therefore, the total No. of 541 actions were pending in the month of March. 8. Over and above, it was stated that there were more than 73 audit objections having tax impact

KEMPAIAH NAGARAJ,BANGALORE vs. NA, NA

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

ITA 2651/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 194ISection 54F

Section 151A and Faceless Reassessment Scheme 6. Without prejudice, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) also erred in not considering the detailed responses and evidences filed before the Assessing Officer, justifying the claim of indexed costs of acquisition and improvement and exemption u/s. 54F. And for other reasons and grounds that may be adduced later, it is humbly prayed that this appeal

SHILPA NARA,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 15/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri G Bhaskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E Shridhar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 44A

148A of the Act, and not under section 153A of the Act, rendering the present assessment procedure invalid. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AR argued that he addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- by the AO is wholly unjustified as the assessee is a consultant gynecologist and not a salaried employee, as erroneously assumed. Moreover, both

SHILPA NARA,CHENNAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 14/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri G Bhaskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri E Shridhar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 44A

148A of the Act, and not under section 153A of the Act, rendering the present assessment procedure invalid. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AR argued that he addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- by the AO is wholly unjustified as the assessee is a consultant gynecologist and not a salaried employee, as erroneously assumed. Moreover, both

EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED) ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1114/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

TDS. is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed by the Appellant against the order us 201 issued for the same assessment year. The learned assessing officer has thus erred in reassessing income under section 147 involving a matter which is already a subject matter of appeal, in violation of third proviso to erstwhile

M/S. EUROFINS PEENYA RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED(FORMERLY KNOW AS EUROFINS ADVINUS LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1113/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

TDS. is a subject matter of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) filed by the Appellant against the order us 201 issued for the same assessment year. The learned assessing officer has thus erred in reassessing income under section 147 involving a matter which is already a subject matter of appeal, in violation of third proviso to erstwhile

AJIT KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(2) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/BANG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan Kit(It)A No.449/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri. C. Ramesh, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Divya K. J, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 148Section 148ASection 239(1)

148A(d) of the Act, was issued to the assessee on 29.04.2022, after obtaining necessary approval. In response to the notice, assessee filed return of income on 08.07.2022 declaring total income of Rs.5,04,279/- and assessee claimed refund of Rs.2,63,670/-. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.06.2023. Thereafter, other

KOGOD BASAVARAJU JAYACHANDRA ,HASSAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result the ITA No

ITA 1618/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

TDS on such interest payment in the light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue, the assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred for business purposes as well

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1614/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

TDS on such interest payment in the light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue, the assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred for business purposes as well

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1615/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

TDS on such interest payment in the light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue, the assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred for business purposes as well

SMT. NISHITA NANDISH,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri.Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 234A

TDS on such interest payment in the light of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act but there is no compliance of the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the assessee since on this issue, the assessee was unable to substantiate the genuineness of expenditure incurred for business purposes as well

BASAVA ROAWAYS (INDIA) PVT. LTD,SEDAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GULBARGA, GULBARGA

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

ITA 565/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate – Standing
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194ASection 194CSection 250

TDS was deducted u/s 194C from the following parties: Particulars Section Amount (Rs.) Ultratech Cement 194C 12,41,23,184 Vasavadatta Cement 194C 5,68,01,670 . ITA No.565 /Bang/2025 Page 3 of 16 Total 18,09,24,854 6. Considering the above receipts of Rs. 18,09,24,854 reflected in Form 26AS, the AO proceeded to estimate

NEETA CHAUDHARY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1)(3), BENGALURU

In the result ground no.2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1769/BANG/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Kumar Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel
Section 133Section 14Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

148A (d) requiring the assessee to show cause why notice under section 148 should not be issued. 4. Assessee furnished reply on 23/3/2023 wherein it was stated that Assessee has purchased a flat, source of which has come from her husband who was working with NTPC and his son who is also working. 5. The learned assessing officer passed