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.

81 results for “TDS”+ Section 272clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi329Mumbai262Karnataka105Bangalore81Ahmedabad51Kolkata49Raipur45Chennai34Pune32Hyderabad29Jaipur23Indore22Visakhapatnam17Chandigarh16Cuttack7Rajkot6Nagpur6Surat5Jodhpur4Cochin4Telangana3Lucknow3Amritsar3Guwahati2Allahabad2Panaji2Kerala2Agra1Patna1

Key Topics

Addition to Income56Section 143(3)50Section 14A38Disallowance33Section 4032Section 153A31Deduction28Section 80J27Section 201(1)25Section 234B

M/S INFOSYS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

24
TDS24
Section 36(1)(viia)23

TDS under section 195. However, it is submitted that the DRP refused to follow the same for the reason that the view has not been accepted by the department and an appeal to ITAT has been filed on this issue. It was therefore held that there is no infirmity in the proposed disallowance by the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO disallowed

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

TDS was deducted, the AO invoked section 40(a)(i) of the Act and held that the expenditure was liable for disallowance. 18.5 Although the expenditure was already disallowed on merits under section 37, the AO noted that the non-deduction of tax also independently triggered disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act. However, no double addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S INFOSYS LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 809/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S INFOSYS LTD ,BANGALOR E vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee as well as by revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 735/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.735/Bang/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Sreenivas T. Bidari, D.R
Section 11Section 14ASection 194JSection 234BSection 40Section 80J

section 80JJAA being disallowed. 17.1. The Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Audit report under section 80JJAA, being Form No. 10DA was submitted to the Ld.AO vide submission dated 28.5.2014. The Ld.AO thereafter called upon assessee to justify the allowability of deduction under section 80JJAA. The assessee explained in detail as to why deduction under section 80JJAA should be allowed

M/S MANTRI TECHNOLOGY CONSTELLATIONS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee appeal is

ITA 130/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(It)A No.130/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mantri Technology Constellations Pvt. Ltd., Mantri House, 41, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 ….Appellant Pan Aafcm 1653D Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, (International Transaction), Circle 1(2), Bangalore. ……Respondent. It(It)A No.384/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (By Revenue) Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri H. Anand, Addl. Cit (D.R)

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. Anand, Addl. CIT (D.R)
Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 250Section 9(1)(vii)Section 90(2)

Section 90(2) of the Act and calculated the short deduction of TDS and interest and has determined the total liability payable by the assessee atRs.1,18,07,272

M/S TORRY HARRIS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for the Assessment Year 2010-11 is dismissed

ITA 827/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: Shri R. Srinivasan, C AFor Respondent: Smt. Padma Meenakshi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 80H

272 under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Act vide order dt.13.3.2014 wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs.14,72,10,830 in view of the Assessing Officer restricting the deduction

M/S J K FABRICS BANGALORE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASST.C.I.T., BANGALORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 714/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Jason P. Boazassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Korra Meghanath Chowhan, Addl.CIT(DR)
Section 195Section 195(1)Section 2(30)Section 40Section 5(2)Section 6Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS – Whether since earlier circular created a vested right in taxpayer and subsequent circular sought to withdraw said right, subsequent circular will not have retrospective effect and disallowance was to be deleted – Held, yes [Para 6] [in favour of assessee].” 17. The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on the ITAT Delhi Bench decision in the case of Welspring

HIPL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2149/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 37

272) Add: Items Disallowed Interest on Tax (TDS) 1,252 Any other amount not allowable under section 37* 8,43,090 *Preliminary

SMT. SHANTHI R PAI,UDUPI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, UDUPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 39/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh R. Uppin, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 250Section 69A

272/- a foreign company TDS Return — Other Interest Rs.8,71,031/- 3 2012-13 TDS-194A Rs.85,803/- 4 2012-13 TDS-195 TDS Return — Payment to Non residents 4.3 The AO has not mentioned any section

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 616/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 617/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 620/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 619/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 615/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

M/S URBAN LADDER HOME DECOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

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

ITA 618/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(It)A No.615 To 620/Bang/2020 Assessment Years :2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-2017, 2017-18 & 2017-18 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Padam.C. Kincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, D.R
Section 133ASection 20Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

TDS provisions. During the course of survey operation, the A.O. noticed that the assessee company has made payments to non-residents towards advertisement and marketing expenses without deducting tax at source. The A.O. took the view that the assessee is liable to deduct tax at source from the payments made to non-residents. 4. The AO examined the taxability

EDUNXT GLOBAL SDN BHD,MALAYSIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BENGALURU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2496/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2496/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Edunxt Global Sdn Bhd, The Deputy Unit A(Ii) Level 5. Commissioner Of Income Menara Shell, Tax, 211 Jalan Tun Circle 1(1), Sambathan, International Taxation, Kuala Lumpur, Vs. Bangalore. My – 50470, Malaysia. Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Ca : Shri K.V. Aravind, Advocate & Revenue By Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 23-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By Non Resident Assessee Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 26.09.2017 Passed By The Ld.Dcit(It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon'Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Had In Law & Liable To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 9(1)(vi)

272 ITR 99 (AAR)  Elsevier Information Systems GmbH v DCIT(IT) [2019] 106 taxmann.com 401 (Mumbai - Trib.)  American Chemical Society v DCIT(IT) [2019] 106 taxmann.com 253 (Mumbai - Trib.)  ITO(IT) v Cadila Healthcare Ltd [2017] 77 taxmann.com 309 (Ahmedabad - Trib.)  The Regents of the University of California UCLA Anderson School of Management Executive Education

M/S IDEB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 44/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.43&44/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sundar Rajan, D.R
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act is leviable. However, the same is to be restricted from the date of payment of TDS to the date of filing e-TDS statements since e-TDS statements cannot be filed without payment of TDS to the credit of Central Government. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal

M/S IDEB PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri B.R. Baskaranita No.43&44/Bang/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sundar Rajan, D.R
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act is leviable. However, the same is to be restricted from the date of payment of TDS to the date of filing e-TDS statements since e-TDS statements cannot be filed without payment of TDS to the credit of Central Government. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal

SHRI. KHADARI SYYEADHUSENPEERA SYYEADKHAJAAMIN,BAGALKOT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, , BENGALURU

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1172/BANG/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Nagaraj Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 143(1)Section 201Section 250Section 40

272 A(2)(i), for which separate provision/procedure was prescribed under the Act. However, once Form 15G/Form 15H was received by the person responsible for deducting tax, there is no liability to deduct tax. Once there is no liability to deduct tax, it cannot be considered that tax is deductible at source under Chapter XVII-B as prescribed under section

THINK AND LEARN PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Think & Learn Private Limited, Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, 4/1, 6Th Floor, Tower D, Ibc Bengaluru. Knowledge Park, Bannerghatta Main Road, Opposite Fire Station, Bengaluru – 560 029. Pan : Aaect 0931 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.08.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2022 Of The Principal Cit – 3 (Pcit), Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1962 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Business Of Providing Online Learning Platform In The Name Of “Byju” For Kindergarten To 12Th Standard Students & Other Related Services. The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring Total Income Of Page 2 Of 10

For Appellant: Shri. T. Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 245RSection 245R(2)(i)Section 263Section 40Section 56(2)(vii)

272/- made to M/s. More Ideas Page 3 of 10 General Trading Company LLC, UAE (More Ideas). The application of the assessee was for Assessment Years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The application of the assessee for ruling was dismissed by the AAR for the reason that as per the provisions of section 245R