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.

899 results for “TDS”+ Section 2(47)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,588Mumbai1,502Bangalore899Chennai577Hyderabad333Ahmedabad315Kolkata313Cochin209Pune209Indore208Raipur182Chandigarh181Jaipur179Karnataka167Visakhapatnam104Cuttack80Surat68Lucknow48Rajkot48Nagpur39Ranchi33Jodhpur27Agra25Guwahati24Patna23Allahabad22Amritsar17Dehradun14Telangana12SC10Panaji6Varanasi6Kerala5Jabalpur3Uttarakhand3Calcutta2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income56Section 4048Section 20146Section 143(3)46Disallowance38TDS37Section 201(1)31Transfer Pricing31Section 92C30Deduction

M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-18(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 813/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vp & Shri Chandra Poojari, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt.R.Premi, JCIT-DR
Section 191Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 4

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This agreement cannot, therefore, be said to be in the nature of a contract referred to in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that the provisions of section 2(47)(v) will apply in the situation before us. Considering the facts and circumstances

Showing 1–20 of 899 · Page 1 of 45

...
29
Section 1122
Comparables/TP21

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

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

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

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

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 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

BELLANDUR CHIKKAGURAPPA JAYARAMREDDY,BENGALURU vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1322/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 2(47)(v)Section 234BSection 50C

2(47) of the Act. The assessee quoted provisions of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to reiterate his contention that the deemed transfer of Schedule A property has taken place on the date of MoU i.e. 08.04.2013. viii. The assessee contends that properties having been exchanged, the consideration for the same has be based Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 270/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 266/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 271/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 267/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 264/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 268/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 265/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),, BANGALORE vs. M/S. ITC EMPLOYEES HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD, BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and all the COs filed by the assessee are also dismissed

ITA 269/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS), Cooke Town, Vs. Ward – 2 (1), Bangalore – 560 005. Bangalore. PAN: AAAAI0532L / BLRIO5890D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vishnu Moorthi, CA Revenue by : Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 15.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 25.05.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH; Out of this bunch of 8 appeals filed by the revenue

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 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 15 &16 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

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 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 15 &16 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because

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 of the Act would not be of any relevance since the credit of taxes deducted under section 192 of the Act are given in the hands of the employees whereas the Assessee’s receipts were in nature of FTS. (Page 15 &16 of the CIT(A) order) The CIT(A) has rejected the below Merely because