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.

1,406 results for “TDS”+ Section 30clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,971 Delhi2,896 Bangalore1,406 Chennai972 Kolkata712 Ahmedabad531 Hyderabad516 Pune414 Jaipur331 Indore306 Cochin242 Chandigarh235 Karnataka221 Patna198 Raipur197 Surat137 Visakhapatnam125 Lucknow105 Nagpur100 Cuttack97 Rajkot96 Amritsar66 Ranchi52 Jodhpur48 Dehradun47 Guwahati42 Agra36 Telangana24 Panaji22 Allahabad18 Jabalpur17 SC17 Varanasi11 Kerala9 Calcutta7 Punjab & Haryana2 Orissa2 Uttarakhand2 Rajasthan2

Key Topics

Section 234E64 Section 143(3)60 Addition to Income48 TDS47 Section 4045 Deduction39 Disallowance36 Section 25035 Section 20133 Section 201(1)

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

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year 2012-

ITA 1848/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri Padamchand Khincha, C.A

Section 143(3)Section 194BSection 201fSection 234BSection 234CSection 40

30,436/- to the horse owners without deducting TDS as required under section 194 BB. 2.6Ld.AO called upon assessee as to why the stake

Showing 1–20 of 1,406 · Page 1 of 71

...

30

Section 143(1)24

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

TDS under section 40(a)(ia) in view of the 1st proviso to section 40(a)(ia) read with 1st proviso to section 40(a)(i). 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and law applicable, software expenses of Rs. 30

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA -BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1045/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: \nSmt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

30 to 38.\niii. As per section 40, certain amounts on which TDS has\nnot been effected shall not be deducted

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE - 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1166/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 958/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R &D INSTITUTE INDIA- BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1046/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30

M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 1092/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - 6, BANGALORE vs. M/S. SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA-BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised grounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 978/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

TDS provisions. iv. In view of the above, the basic requirement of invoking section 40 can be summarized as below: a. Certain amounts claimed as deduction while computing income chargeable under the head 'profits & gains of business & profession' can be disallowed. b. Even the amounts claimed as deduction by virtue of provisions of section 30

M/S SAMSUNG R & D INSTITUTE INDIA BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee as per revised\ngrounds stands allowed and the appeals filed by the revenue\nstands dismissed for the years under consideration

ITA 484/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: \nSmt. Tanmayee RajkumarFor Respondent: \nShri D.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 32Section 40

30 to 38.\niii. As per section 40, certain amounts on which TDS has\nnot been effected shall not be deducted

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 194B of the Act, which is a general provision for TDS, in order to cover 'stake money' in its ambit. The learned representative has rightly pointed out to the Budget speech of the Finance Minister wherein it was stated that "television game shows are very popular these days and I propose that income tax at 30

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 194B of the Act, which is a general provision for TDS, in order to cover 'stake money' in its ambit. The learned representative has rightly pointed out to the Budget speech of the Finance Minister wherein it was stated that "television game shows are very popular these days and I propose that income tax at 30

SOMCHAND GIRIRAJ GUPTA ,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1 & TPS , VIJAYAPUR

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 124/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Somchand Giriraj Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, Mukund Nagar, Ward 1 & Tps, Station Road, Vijayapur. Vijayapura. Vs. Pan: Abtpg6461F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Ca Revenue By : Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-10-2021 Order Per Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(2)Section 46

30,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny to verify cash deposits, sale of property and mismatch in income/capital gain on sale of land or building. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued, in response to which representative of assessee appeared before the Ld.AO and filed requisite details as called for. The Ld.AO observed that, agricultural land

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

TDS under section 194J of the Act. 12. Facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 585,30

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

TDS under section 194J of the Act. 12. Facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee had incurred a sum of Rs. 585,30

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)

30 of 47 in other sections relating to TDS. Thus, it can be seen that the assessee company has failed

INFOSYS LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

Section 40(a)(i) / 30 IT(TP)A Nos.102 & 233/Bang/2013 Infosys Limited (ia) of the Act for not making TDS

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

30-07-2013 called upon the assessee to Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos. 1689 & 1690/Bang/2017 furnish the details of payment made and the TDS deducted and remitted to the Central Government account. In response to this, the assessee company vide its letter 12-08-2013 submitted copies of Form 3CD. Subsequently, the Ld.ITO(TDS) called for party wise details

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

30-07-2013 called upon the assessee to Page 3 of 23 ITA Nos. 1689 & 1690/Bang/2017 furnish the details of payment made and the TDS deducted and remitted to the Central Government account. In response to this, the assessee company vide its letter 12-08-2013 submitted copies of Form 3CD. Subsequently, the Ld.ITO(TDS) called for party wise details

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)

Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

30 two separate categories. In this context, he drew our attention to clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to section 194J of the Act. He submitted, even section 194J has prescribed two different rates for TDS

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

TDS provisions, but the AO proceeded to make adjustment under section 37 of the Act in the DAO. In view of the above, Ld. A.R. in the paragraphs below provided detailed submission explaining the reasons for which the addition proposed by the learned AO needs to be dropped – Background 2.5 Ld. A.R. submitted that the employees of the Company