Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

103 results for “TDS”+ Section 268clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi320 Mumbai245 Bangalore103 Karnataka83 Chennai76 Hyderabad68 Ahmedabad38 Kolkata37 Jaipur31 Nagpur25 Chandigarh22 Visakhapatnam17 Raipur15 Pune14 Lucknow14 Patna8 Guwahati7 Cochin6 Indore5 Cuttack4 Surat4 Jodhpur3 Calcutta2 Jabalpur2 Rajkot2 Amritsar1 Panaji1 SC1

Key Topics

Section 14892 Section 14759 Addition to Income54 Deduction47 Section 24844 TDS44 Disallowance44 Section 20142 Section 201(1)35 Section 143(3)

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(1A) of the Act for the intermittent period between the period of accounting and date of actual payment of TDS - Rs. 3,268

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

Showing 1–20 of 103 · Page 1 of 6

34

Section 40A(3)29

section 201(1A) of the Act for the intermittent period between the period of accounting and date of actual payment of TDS - Rs. 3,268

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(1A) of the Act for the intermittent period between the period of accounting and date of actual payment of TDS - Rs. 3,268

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

section 195 of the Act are not applicable to such remittances. 1.12. The NFAC has erred in law and on facts by relying on decision of Danfoss Industries P Ltd (2004) 268 ITR 1 pronounced by the Hon’ble Authority for Advance Ruling (‘AAR’). The transaction covered by the said decision is very different on facts as compared to that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1295/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS under section 195 on\nthe payments made to overseas entity towards \"Fee for technical\nservices\".\n15. In the case of Danfoss Industries P Ltd (2004) 268

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRLCE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1296/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS under section 195 on\nthe payments made to overseas entity towards \"Fee for technical\nservices\".\n\n15. In the case of Danfoss Industries P Ltd (2004) 268

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE - 1(1), BENGALURU vs. APPLIED MATERIALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BENGALURU

In the result, all these 4 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1294/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. Divya K.J., CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri Suryanarayan, AR

Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS under section 195 on\nthe payments made to overseas entity towards \"Fee for technical\nservices\".\n\n15. In the case of Danfoss Industries P Ltd (2004) 268

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 174/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harinder Kumar, D.R

Section 144(3)Section 37Section 92C

TDS under section 192 of the Act as "perquisite" in the hands of the employees and appropriate taxes are deducted and remitted by the Appellant, which is evidenced by sample Form 16 copies furnished before the honorable AO and DRP. 2.10. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by stating that the provisions of section

GLOBAL E-BUSINESS OPERATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

TDS under section 192 of the Act as perquisite in the hands of the 5 IT(TP)A No.212/Bang/2021. M/s.Global E-Business Operations Pvt.Ltd. employees and appropriate taxes are deducted and remitted by the Appellant, which is evidenced by sample Form 16 copies furnished before the honorable DRP. 2.10. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts

HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMITED,2016-17 vs. 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 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

TDS under section 192 of the Act as perquisite in the hands of the employees and appropriate taxes are deducted and remitted by the Appellant, which is evidenced by sample Form 16 copies. 2.10. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts by stating that the provisions of section 195 of the Act shall be applicable

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only

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

Section 244A is mandatory. The appellant could not claim the TDS in the relevant year because of the delay in the deductor issuing the certificates and same was claimed in the year in which certificates were received from the deductors. The provision for excluding period of delay attributable to the deductor has been introduced in subsection (2) of Section244A only