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.

251 results for “TDS”+ Section 194Jclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai634Delhi406Bangalore251Kolkata200Chennai165Ahmedabad56Karnataka56Hyderabad48Chandigarh37Cochin35Jaipur35Pune28Cuttack24Dehradun20Indore19Visakhapatnam16Rajkot15Jabalpur13Telangana11Amritsar11Nagpur11Raipur10Panaji10Surat8Patna8Agra5Calcutta4Lucknow4Jodhpur4Allahabad4SC3Varanasi2Guwahati1Orissa1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Section 40102Section 201(1)84Section 20182Section 14A74Section 143(3)59Disallowance56TDS55Addition to Income51Deduction46Section 192

SHIVA & SHIVA ORTHOPEDIC HOSPITAL PVT. LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD - 2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.1262 1263(B)/2017 appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1262/BANG/2017[2012 - 13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Kumar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Aggarwal, Addl.CIT
Section 192Section 194JSection 201Section 271

TDS), Ward-2(2), Bangalore ("AO" for short), holding that the Appellant was liable to deduct taxes at source on the fees / remuneration paid to its consultant-doctors under Section 192 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), as against under Section 194J

Showing 1–20 of 251 · Page 1 of 13

...
39
Section 1039
Section 194J36

M/S VIDAL HEALTH INSURANCE TPA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , BANGALORE

In the result appeals for A

ITA 1213/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. O.P. Meena

For Respondent: Shri. Ajay Rotti, C.A
Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40Section 9(1)(iv)

194J. Ld. AR thus submitted that the term ‘royalty’ would be restricted to the definition as provided under Explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vi), and would therefore not include software payments as provided in Explanation 4 to section 9 (1) (vi) of the Act. He thus submitted that there is no requirement to deduct TDS

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIAVTE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1690/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

ROBERT BOSCH ENGINEERING AND BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) /OSD , BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1689/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Percy Padiwala, Sr
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

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 provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

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 provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

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 provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTPU , BANGALORE

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

ITA 2846/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

TDS provisions again so as to demand the tax under the provisions of section 201 and also levy interest under section 201(1A). We are unable to understand the logic of AO in considering the same as covered by the provisions of section 194C to 194J

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 648/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

TDS) of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read

ACIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S IDEA CELLUAR LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 758/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

TDS) of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read

M/S IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 651/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2015AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri Ronak G Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 194HSection 194JSection 201(1)

TDS) of this is not fees for technical services as envisaged in Section 194J read with Section 9(1)(vii) read

HUBLI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ,HUBBALLI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), HUBALLI

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

ITA 341/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R., A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201Section 250Section 40

194J of the Act. The assessee has deducted the TDS u/s 194C of the Act. There was only short deduction of TDS if so and not liable for disallowance of entire amount by invoking the provisions of section

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

TDS thereon. We find that in the F.Y. 2005-06 relevant to A.Y. 2006-07, the year under consideration, there was no liability to deduct tax at source under Section 194J

DCIT vs. M/S TELERADIOLOGY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 1728/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Feb 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT (D.R)For Respondent: Shri Navneet N Kini, C.A
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 194J

TDS need not be made under Section 194J of the IT Act are applicable. Further, the decisions relied upon by the CIT (Appeals

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

TDS and therefore not liable for disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 13.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. The Assessing Officer disallowed both the aforesaid payments (supra) u/s.40(a)(i) / 40(a)(ia) for not deducting tax at source thereon. During the period relevant to Assessment Year

IVORYBRICK HOMES LLP,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1846/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri C Sandeep, C.A
Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

TDs under section 194J of the Act. 5. The explanation of assessee was not accepted by the Ld.AO and he concluded

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 61/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

194J, Section 194K,Section 194L, Section 195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. 201(1). If any such person and in the cases referred to in Section 194, the principal officer and the company

M/S RAMBUS CHIP TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 23/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jul 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Jason P.Boaz

For Appellant: Shri G.C.Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

194J, Section 194K,Section 194L, Section 195, Section 196A, Section 196B, Section 196C and Section 196D shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs. 201(1). If any such person and in the cases referred to in Section 194, the principal officer and the company

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

section 194J has prescribed two different rates for TDS for professional services and technical services. Thus, he submitted, the payment

JAYARAM REDDY BOOPESH REDDY,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

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

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

section 194C or 194J of the Act. The assessee was under statutory duty to deduct TDS. Failure to do so attracts