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.

118 results for “TDS”+ Section 253(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai531Delhi462Chennai170Bangalore118Karnataka90Jaipur57Kolkata57Chandigarh54Indore45Ahmedabad38Cochin32Pune30Lucknow29Raipur27Nagpur26Surat14Rajkot13Panaji13Hyderabad10Jodhpur6Guwahati6Varanasi5Jabalpur5Allahabad4Telangana4Amritsar4Patna4Visakhapatnam3SC2Dehradun2J&K1Cuttack1Calcutta1Agra1

Key Topics

Addition to Income62Section 206A54Section 143(3)47Disallowance37Section 201(1)34Deduction32Section 4027TDS26Section 36(1)(iii)24Section 36(1)(vii)

M/S. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & COMPANY,SANDUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, BELLARY

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1054/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013–14

For Appellant: Shri Chythanya K.K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT
Section 145Section 28Section 5

section 28 of the Act. In support of this contention, Ld.Counsel relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dr.T.A Quereshi vs CIT (supra). OR; ii. To treat it as expenditure in the hands of assessee under section 37 of the Act. It has been submitted by Ld.Counsel that Explanation 2 to section 37 is not applicable

CISCO SYSTEMS SERVICES B.V,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 118 · Page 1 of 6

23
Section 13222
Section 115J22

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 961/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 961/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Cisco Systems Services B.V. – India The Deputy Branch, Commissioner Of Brigade South Parade, Income Tax, No. 10, International Taxation, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Circle – 1(1), Vs. Bangalore – 560 001. Bangalore. Pan: Aaccc4836D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora, Ca : Dr. Manjunath Karkaihalli, Revenue By Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-01-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld.Ao Dated 27.02.2017 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(14) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [The Act] On The Following Grounds: “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cisco Systems Services B.V. - India Branch (Hereinafter Referred To As The 'Appellant.) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - Circle 1(1) ('Assessing Officer' Or 'Ao') Dated February 27, 2017 In Pursuance Of The Directions & The Revised Directions Issued By The Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp'), Bangalore Dated December 29, 2016 & January 16. 2017 Respectively, Under Section 253 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('Act) On The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, CA
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 92C

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('Act) on the following grounds: Page 2 of 17 IT(IT)A No. 961/Bang/2017 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and based on the directions of the DRP: A. Grounds of appeal relating to corporate tax matters 1. The learned AO has erred

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G Manoj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

253 (Gauhati). The Gauhati High Court framed the following question of law and proceeded to answer it as follows (page 255) "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that no separate accounts are required to be maintained for claiming deductions under sections 80HH

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOPPAL vs. MUDIYAPPA, MALLIGEVADA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1460/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Veeranna M. Murgod, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

253/-. We notie from Form 26AS that assessee has received contract receipts from M/s. SML Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and others noted supra and TDS is reflecting in Form 26AS but there is mismatch in the turnover reported in the income tax return with the contract receipts shown in From 26AS. The AO has issued notice under section

SHRI. MUDIYAPPA,GANGAVATHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KOPPAL

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1506/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Veeranna M. Murgod, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 194CSection 44A

253/-. We notie from Form 26AS that assessee has received contract receipts from M/s. SML Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and others noted supra and TDS is reflecting in Form 26AS but there is mismatch in the turnover reported in the income tax return with the contract receipts shown in From 26AS. The AO has issued notice under section

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 2(1), MANGALORE vs. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED., MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 161/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

M/S. KARNATAKA BANK LIMITED,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CIRCLE- 2(1), MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1107/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K., Judciial Member Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ananthan S. & Smt. Lalitha Rameswaran, CAsFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 14ASection 234BSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40Section 41(4)

Section 14A rwr 8D. The disallowance is made after examining all the issues and relying upon the decision of the Bombay High court in the case of Godrej and Boyce 328 ITR. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in assessee's own case for AY 2001-02 has not been accepted by the department

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2448/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273BSection 275

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBBALI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2446/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273BSection 275

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

PRIYADARSHINI EDUCATION SOCIETY ,DAVANGERE vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS RANGE , HUBLI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14 are allowed

ITA 2447/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri. Zain Ahmed Khan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas Suryavamshi, Addl.CIT
Section 133ASection 192Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273BSection 275

TDS Range, Hubli, passed separate orders dated 26.07.2016 under section 271C of the Act levying penalty thereunder on the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2013-14. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, dismissed the assessee’s appeals vide order dated 12.06.2018; thereby upholding the levy of penalty by the AO on the assessee for the three Assessment Years

M/S YASKAWA INDIA PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2020/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanand Shri Jason P Boazit(Tp)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Assessment Years : 2012-13 M/S. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of No.17/A, 2Nd Main, Electronic Income-Tax, City, Phase – I, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(2), Bengaluru – 560 100. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaacy 4408 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Narendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

TDS of Rs. 9,37,869/-. IT(TP)A No.2020/Bang/2017 Page 5 of 7 4. Grounds 1 to 8 (Transfer Pricing Issues) and 9(b) – Corporate Tax 4.1 At the outset of the hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that vide letter dated 21.03.2019, the assessee has sought withdrawal of appeal filed under section 253

STATE BANK OF INDIA,HOSPET vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 2/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Respondent: Sheri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 148Section 191Section 194ASection 201(1)

TDS if same is not remitted to the Central Govt. Account. (12) That the order of the learned Respondent is hit by Article 19(1)(g) of the constitution. No "assessee" can be considered as an "assessee in default" unless a 5 ITA Nos.2 to 5(Bang)/2016 demand notice under section 156 had been given to him. According

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)

5 of 22 law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle 18(1), Bangalore ("the TDS Officer") u/s 201 after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which e-TDS statement is filed. 2. The Appellant prays that the order

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)

5 of 22 law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle 18(1), Bangalore ("the TDS Officer") u/s 201 after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which e-TDS statement is filed. 2. The Appellant prays that the order

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)

5 of 22 law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Circle 18(1), Bangalore ("the TDS Officer") u/s 201 after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which e-TDS statement is filed. 2. The Appellant prays that the order

ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S MPHASIS LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed and appeal filed by assessee stands allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 429/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C

TDS was duly deducted and deposited to the credit of Government during the year under consideration. The learned AO has further erred in reducing Rs. 10,40,253 from the profits of the business and thereby reducing deduction u/s 10A/10B/10AA. GENERAL GROUNDS 11. The lower income tax authorities have erred in levying a sum of Rs.77,43,733 towards interest

KARNATAKA AGROCHEMICAL PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-4(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri SreeHariKutsa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 269TSection 271E

253 ITR 754 (Mad) observed as follows :- "5. The words 'reasonable cause' in the section must necessarily have a relation to the failure on the part .of the assessee to comply with the requirements of the law which he had failed to comply with. In case of delay in compliance, the cause shown must be for the whole

M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2836/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 253

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12. Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)-] dated 31 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 14 August 2018), on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts

M/S CGI INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2834/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 253

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12. Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)-] dated 31 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 14 August 2018), on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts

M/S CGI INFORMATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2835/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 195Section 201Section 253

253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"], against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 12. Bangalore ["learned CIT(A)-] dated 31 July 2018 (received by the Appellant on 14 August 2018), on the following grounds: Ground 1: General 1.1 The impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is based on incorrect appreciation of facts