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.

603 results for “TDS”+ Section 195(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,078Mumbai1,015Bangalore603Chennai469Ahmedabad201Kolkata172Karnataka121Pune98Hyderabad86Chandigarh83Jaipur73Visakhapatnam49Indore39Rajkot33Cochin29Cuttack21Lucknow20Raipur18Dehradun16Surat10Nagpur8Jodhpur7Allahabad6Jabalpur6Telangana6SC5Panaji5Amritsar4Agra4Calcutta3Guwahati2Kerala2Punjab & Haryana1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)58Addition to Income58Section 4057Section 153A51Section 10A42Disallowance37Deduction36TDS35Section 92C29Section 147

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1251/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

TDS) of payments made to non-residents. In other words, according to the Department, section 195(2) is a provision by which the payer is required to inform the Department of the remittances he makes to non-residents by which the Department is able to keep track of the remittances being made to non-residents outside India. We find

Showing 1–20 of 603 · Page 1 of 31

...
25
Section 14825
Section 20125

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1329/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

TDS) of payments made to non-residents. In other words, according to the Department, section 195(2) is a provision by which the payer is required to inform the Department of the remittances he makes to non-residents by which the Department is able to keep track of the remittances being made to non-residents outside India. We find

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON RESEARCH LTD.,, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1250/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

TDS) of payments made to non-residents. In other words, according to the Department, section 195(2) is a provision by which the payer is required to inform the Department of the remittances he makes to non-residents by which the Department is able to keep track of the remittances being made to non-residents outside India. We find

BIOCON RESEARCH LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT(A) I, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1229/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Parbat, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 194CSection 40

TDS) of payments made to non-residents. In other words, according to the Department, section 195(2) is a provision by which the payer is required to inform the Department of the remittances he makes to non-residents by which the Department is able to keep track of the remittances being made to non-residents outside India. We find

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 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 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

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

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

6 of 32 "A. Expenses incurred on remittance made to non-residents and whether section 195 of the Act, has been complied with? B. In respect of ESOP cross-charges incurred by the assesse company, furnish a detailed note on modus operandi of ESOP calculation and vesting period option exercised by the employees and whether section 195 is applicable

S N BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 106/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S. S.N.Builders & Developers, No.4, 2Nd Floor, Elephant Rock Road, Above Kalayan Jewellers, Jayanagar 3Rd Block, Bengaluru-560 011. Pan: Abefs 8850 P … Appellant Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 4(3)(1), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant By : Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ca. Respondent By : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2019 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm : The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bangalore-9, Bangalore, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ['The Act' For Short].

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

TDS) at page 4 and 5 at para. 6 and 7 which reads as under: “6. We heard the rival submissions and perused material on record. The issue in appeal relates to the liability of the assessee-company to deduct tax at source on provisions made as at the end of the accounting year. The undisputed fact is that

M/S TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 3/BANG/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Te Connectivity India Pvt. Ltd. ‘Te’ Park, 22B, Doddenakundi 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bangalore-560048. … Appellant Pan: Aabct 7374 C Vs. Income-Tax Officer (Ltu)(Tds) Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Kishore Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 201Section 250

TDS) of payments made to non- residents. In other words, according to the Department, section 195(2) is a provision by which the payer is required to inform the Department of the remittances he makes to non-residents by which the Department is able to keep track of the Page 9 of 13 remittances being made to non-residents outside

BOSCJ LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is treated as

ITA 1583/BANG/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Mar 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri K.P.Kumar, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Smt. Rukmani Attri, JCIT
Section 195Section 201(1)Section 40Section 95

TDS) of payments made to non-residents. In other words, according to the Department, section 195(2) is a provision by which the payer is required to inform the Department of the remittances he makes to non-residents by which the Department is able to keep track of the remittances being made to non-residents outside India. We find

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 under section 195 and hence not to be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia). 3.3 Without prejudice, when credit / payments were made to non residents during the FY 2005-06, there was no liability to deduct tax at source and the subsequent decisions / retrospective amendments to law does not alter this position. 4 IT(TP)A Nos.799 & 942/Bang/2015 Infosys

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1), DAVANGERE vs. M/S MUURUGARAJENDRA OIL INDUSTRY PVT LTD , CHITRADURGA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2094/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate
Section 194(6)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

195 Univercel Logistics 64,860 3,73,751 Lorry Freight details to be 6,58,91,822 uploaded Less: Lorry freight details 5,59,87,215 uploaded Balance details not uploaded 99,04,607 6c. In the instant case, the appellant is not carrying on transportation business, further CBDT vide Circular No. 19/2015 dated 27/11/2015 has clarified that, deductor doing

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

195 of the Act wherein obligation of a person to deduct tax at source would be applicable to the 'income chargeable under the Act'. Absence of such words 'chargeable to tax' under the provisions of Section 194-A of the Act would not empower the authorities to invoke the provisions of Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Act ignoring

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

195 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Page 4 IT(TP)A No. 718/Bang/2017 18. Without prejudice, software payments made to residents totally amounting to Rs. 30,23,602was not liable for TDS under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to section

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 986/BANG/2017[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 986/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(It)A No. 990/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Addl. Respondent By : Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: CIT (DR)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 9(1)(vi)

6. The Ld.AR submitted that application under section 248 of the Act, were filed seeking declaration that payments made to the non- resident at Poland was not liable for TDS as per the section 195

M/S. INFOSYS BPO LINITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeals filed for assessment years under consideration stands partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 986/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) & It(It)A No. 990/Bang/2017 Assessment Year: 2015-16 The Deputy M/S. Infosys Bpo Ltd., Commissioner Of Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, International Taxation, Bangalore – 560 100. Vs. Circle 1 (1), Pan: Aaccp4478N Bangalore. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca Shri Priyadarshi Misra, Addl. Respondent By : Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.10.2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: CIT (DR)
Section 195Section 195ASection 206ASection 9(1)(vi)

6. The Ld.AR submitted that application under section 248 of the Act, were filed seeking declaration that payments made to the non- resident at Poland was not liable for TDS as per the section 195

M/S MOONFROG LABS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 3066/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Moonfrog Labs Pvt. Ltd., 16/3, Level-3, The Assistant Adarsh Yellavarthy Centre, Commissioner Of Cambridge Road, Income Tax, Ulsoor Jogupalya, Circle – 4(1)(2), Bangalore – 560008. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Aaicm9563H Appellant Respondent : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh .K, Jcit Revenue By (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 21-10-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-12-2021 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 18.12.2017 Passed By The Acit, Circle – 4 (1)(2), Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. General Ground 1.1. The Learned Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(2), Bangalore (`A0') Has Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (`The Act') In The Manner Passed By Him & The Commissioner Of Income Tax- (Appeals)-4 (`Cit(A)') Has Erred In Confirming The Said Assessment Order. The Said Order Being Bad In Law Is Liable To Be Quashed.

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(2)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS under section 195. 2.2 The AO after considering the submissions of assessee disallowed Rs. 1,16,00,535/- under section 40(a)(i) for non-deduction of tax at source as royalty and /or FTS in respect of the payments made to Facebook and other entities under section 195. The Ld.AO also disallowed

TECNOTREE CONVERGENCE LT D,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 1519/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT
Section 10ASection 10A(3)Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 155Section 40Section 94(7)

TDS was not done thereon, the payments are liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 10.5.2 Section 195 of the Act deals with the deduction of tax at source from out of the payments made to non-residents. Under Section 195 of the Act, an obligation is cast on a person making payment