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.

1,567 results for “TDS”+ Section 22clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,011Delhi2,975Bangalore1,567Chennai1,095Kolkata698Pune539Hyderabad468Indore423Ahmedabad394Jaipur282Cochin236Raipur224Karnataka221Chandigarh205Patna172Visakhapatnam146Nagpur127Surat107Lucknow85Rajkot84Cuttack63Dehradun48Ranchi46Amritsar41Panaji32Guwahati32Agra30Jodhpur27Telangana27Allahabad26Jabalpur22SC14Varanasi12Kerala10Calcutta5Orissa2Uttarakhand2Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1J&K1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)72Addition to Income72Section 4051Disallowance48Deduction43Section 153A37TDS35Section 10A34Section 14727Transfer Pricing

FIDELITY BUSINESS SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 416/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzzaffar Hussain, CIT, LTU (D.R)
Section 115Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(d)Section 77A

TDS at source shall be issued where buyback of shares has taken place prior to 1.6.2013 and the case is covered under Section 46A read with section 2(22

Showing 1–20 of 1,567 · Page 1 of 79

...
26
Section 14825
Section 6823

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), HUBBALLI vs. M/S. KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEEN BANK LIMITED, DHARWAD

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

ITA 720/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

TDS which has been reproduced in the assessment order. It was observed that it warrants disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a letter stating that the original return filed on 29/09/2016 may be treated as return filed in response to notice

M/S KARNATAKA VIKAS GRAMEENA BANK,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

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

ITA 611/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, C.A, S.V Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D George, CIT (DR)
Section 143Section 234BSection 250Section 36

TDS which has been reproduced in the assessment order. It was observed that it warrants disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a letter stating that the original return filed on 29/09/2016 may be treated as return filed in response to notice

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

Section 2[22][e] of the Act as per the ratio of the Madras High Court in the case of K.SRINIVASAN reported in 50 ITR 788. 4. Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon’ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies herself liable to be charged to interest u/s.234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act, which under

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

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) in the computation of income on the reason that TDS was not made. For this reason alone assessee's grounds can to be allowed. Considering the facts and reasons stated above assessee's grounds are allowed. Page 22

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

section 40(a)(i)/(ia) in the computation of income on the reason that TDS was not made. For this reason alone assessee's grounds can to be allowed. Considering the facts and reasons stated above assessee's grounds are allowed. Page 22

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

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1849/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2248/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha
Section 194BSection 201fSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, observed that assessee debited TDS of ₹ 36,80,465/- in respect of part of stake money paid to horse owners amounting to the extent of ₹ 1,22

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

22. The ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 23. Considering the rival submissions we note that the assessee has deducted TDS and filed TDS return belatedly as prescribed in the Act, therefore, the CPC-TDS imposed levy for delay in filing the consequential TDS return. This issue has been settled by the various decision of jurisdictional High

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

22,83,222/- For AY:2013-14: Total Provision :Rs.1,65,77,388/- TDS deducted and paid in the same year : Rs.1,01,59,588/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated : The amount of Rs.1,01,59,588/-, inadvertently was retained in the provision. However upon noticing the error, it was reversed as on 31/03/2014. Before we advert

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

22,83,222/- For AY:2013-14: Total Provision :Rs.1,65,77,388/- TDS deducted and paid in the same year : Rs.1,01,59,588/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated : The amount of Rs.1,01,59,588/-, inadvertently was retained in the provision. However upon noticing the error, it was reversed as on 31/03/2014. Before we advert

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

22,83,222/- For AY:2013-14: Total Provision :Rs.1,65,77,388/- TDS deducted and paid in the same year : Rs.1,01,59,588/- Balance on which no TDS effectuated : The amount of Rs.1,01,59,588/-, inadvertently was retained in the provision. However upon noticing the error, it was reversed as on 31/03/2014. Before we advert

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)

22. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that this issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. HCL Technologies Ltd. (404 ITR 719), wherein held as under: “Neither section 10A nor section 2 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 defines the term “total turnover”. The term