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.

1,981 results for “TDS”+ Section 15clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,050Delhi4,010Bangalore1,981Chennai1,466Kolkata976Pune793Hyderabad753Ahmedabad731Indore635Jaipur469Chandigarh391Cochin357Raipur319Karnataka276Nagpur274Visakhapatnam260Surat240Cuttack206Patna194Rajkot157Lucknow106Jabalpur98Amritsar94Dehradun70Jodhpur66Ranchi64Guwahati51Panaji50Agra45Allahabad45Telangana39SC21Kerala14Varanasi13Calcutta12Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan5Punjab & Haryana3Uttarakhand3Orissa3J&K2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Bombay1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Section 143(3)53TDS42Section 153A37Disallowance35Section 153C32Section 201(1)31Section 20131Deduction31Section 10A

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,981 · Page 1 of 100

...
27
Section 14A27
Section 6826

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. 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

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 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

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

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

BANGALORE TRUF CLUB LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1848/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 201fSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

15,30,436/- to the horse owners without deducting TDS as required under section 194 BB. 2.6Ld.AO called upon assessee

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1066/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 726/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) RANGE-17 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 721/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-17(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 720/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 941/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. M/S. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, BENGALURU

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 727/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE vs. M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 943/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

M/S KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E) CIRCLE-1 , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose while the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: S/Shri. V. Narendra Sharma, S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Jha, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 25

section 2(15) of the Act for the following reasons: i) Revenue from operations and miscellaneous income was Rs.1515,06,05,000 and Rs. 150,92,67,000/- respectively and these incomes included income from streams which were commercial in nature. ii) It was providing buses on hire for excursion, wedding, pilgrimage etc., to general public and charges for such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE vs. M/S.DELL INDIA PVT.LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 2035/BANG/2016[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1151/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

DELL INDIA P LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), LTU, BANGALORE

In the result the appeals filed by assessee and revenue for A

ITA 1644/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 201

TDS. What needs to be ascertained is, under such circumstances; whether the assessee(deductor) could be treated to be “assessee in default” under the provisions of Sec.201(1) of the Act ? Whether interest under section 201(1A) deserves to be levied? 11. The said section reads as under: Section 201 (1) Where any person, including the principal officer

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

TDS after 1-7-2012.[Para 18] Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of section 200(3) or section 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under section 272A(2)(k) is done away in view of the insertion of section 271 H providing for penal provision for such failure