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.

33 results for “TDS”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi178Indore134Mumbai123Chennai114Pune87Raipur35Bangalore33Cochin26Dehradun26Jabalpur23Kolkata19Nagpur14Chandigarh13Surat11Panaji10Visakhapatnam9Hyderabad9Jaipur9Amritsar8Jodhpur7Lucknow7Karnataka4Ahmedabad4Cuttack3Allahabad2Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234E61Section 200A53Section 14333Deduction19Disallowance17TDS14Section 200(3)13Section 15413Section 20012Depreciation

DY DIT vs. M/S INFOSYS BPO LTD.,,

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the cross

ITA 1143/BANG/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2015AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Respondent: Dr. P.K.Srihari, Addl.CIT
Section 115ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(b)Section 206ASection 246A

246A of the Act by Finance Act, 2012, a remedy of appeal is provided against an intimation under section 200A(1) of the Act with effect from 01-07-2012. It is fairly not disputed by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents that if the appeals had been filed on or after 01-07-2012, the appeals were maintainable

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

11
Section 246A10
Addition to Income9

M/S WIPRO LTD. vs. ITO,

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and S

ITA 1544/BANG/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P George & Shri Vijaypal Rao

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Manjunatha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajashekar, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 139ASection 156Section 200ASection 206ASection 90(2)Section 90A(2)

246A before the CIT(A) without prejudice. 2. The ld.CIT(A)-IV, Bangalore has erred in upholding the validity of intimation passed by the learned Income tax Officer, International Taxation, Ward-2(1), Bangalore under section 200A of the IT Act. On facts and in the ci8rcumstandfes of the case and law applicable, the intimation so passed is without jurisdiction

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 247/BANG/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 243/BANG/2018[1999-00]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 1999-00

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 245/BANG/2018[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 248/BANG/2018[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 249/BANG/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 250/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 251/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 252/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 253/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 254/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

M/S MAHARASHTRA APEX CORPORATION LIMITED ,MANIPAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , UDUPI , UDUPI

240 & 241/Bang/2018

ITA 255/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kumar Rao, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT DR
Section 143Section 154

246A(1)(a). 3. This non-credit of TDS was dealt with by the ITAT in respect of claim for credit of such TDS in its orders in ITA No 346/Bang/2008 and 347/Bang/2008 for Asst year 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and the Tribunal directed the granting of the same after verification. Said common order is enclosed ( Annexure

MUNIYAPPA MUNIRAJU ,BENGALURU vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1119/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Muniyappa Muniraju, Vs. Pr. Cit, No.1/3, 1St Cross, Muni Narasimhaiah Bangalore - 2. Garden, Chocolate Factory Main Road, Btm I Stage, Bangalore – 560 029, Karnataka. Pan : Anjpm 0458 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Muthu Shankar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore. Date Of Hearing : 04.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194HSection 263Section 44A

TDS amounting to Rs. 65,000/- is available in the credit of the assessee and the same was claimed by the assessee in the return of income, however the assessee has not included the said commission income received of Rs. 12,00,000/-. The appellant filed the details and documents in support of his case and the Hon’ble Principal

M/S. GE BE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2615/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George K. George

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly &For Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 92D

TDS on the assessee could not have been fastened and consequently, the proceedings under section 201 and 201(1A) could not have been initiated. For the aforementioned reason the substantial question of law is answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. 11.4. The basis on which the disallowance was made has been reversed by Hon’ble Karnataka High

THOMAS ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),CIRCLE-1(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 390/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Manohar Naidu, CA
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

THOMAS ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),CIRCLE-1(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 389/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Manohar Naidu, CA
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

THOMAS ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),CIRCLE-1(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 387/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Manohar Naidu, CA
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

THOMAS ABRAHAM,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),CIRCLE-1(3)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 388/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Manohar Naidu, CA
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

246A. In absence of the power of authority to make such adjustment under section 200A of the Act, any calculation of the fee would not partake the character of the intimation under said provision and it could be argued that such an order would not be open to any rectification or appeal. Upon introduction of the recasted clause (c), this

M/S. TEEKAYS FURNITURE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, WARD-3(3), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals by the assessees are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 334/BANG/2021[2015-16 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2021

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri.Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Sowmya Virupakshaiah Addl.CIT
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206CSection 234E

246A of the Act. Since the appellant has not filed copy of the relevant order under Section 200A of the Act. the appeals are M/s.Teekays Furniture Solutions Private Limited found to be inherently defective and not maintainable. Therefore. the appeals are dismissed. The issue of delay becomes academic and the same is not being adjudicated.” 7. The Assessee thereafter filed