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.

223 results for “TDS”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi499Mumbai437Chennai244Bangalore223Kolkata162Jaipur52Hyderabad48Ahmedabad46Indore37Pune31Raipur28Visakhapatnam25Rajkot23Chandigarh21Lucknow19Cuttack15Patna14Jodhpur12Guwahati12Cochin11Nagpur10Surat9Agra5Ranchi4Karnataka4Dehradun4Varanasi4Jabalpur3Amritsar2Calcutta1SC1Telangana1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Addition to Income65Disallowance64Section 4062Section 143(3)54Section 20152Section 80P41Deduction41TDS33Section 40A(3)32Section 201(1)

TEXO THE BUILDERS,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1199/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

section 40A(3) of the Act. Hence,\ndisallowance does not arise. The breakup the disallowance is given\n\nDate\nParticulars\nVch Type\nCredit\nRemarks on Payment classification\nDay\nRemarks on TDS

Showing 1–20 of 223 · Page 1 of 12

...
27
Section 25025
Section 2(15)21

TEXO THE BUILDERS ,UDUPI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, we dismiss grounds raised by the assessee

ITA 1200/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri.Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S,JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 154Section 40A(3)Section 68

Section 40A(3) of the Act but it is also revealed that these payments were pertained to salary for the months of May to August. The genuineness of the payments has not been doubted. The employees were insisted upon casfannexh payments only, therefore, to maintain the good relation with them, the company paid cash salary for various months

ARJUN KESHAVA MURTHY PERIKAL,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 810/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)

TDS deduction and remittance. The disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments was deleted due to lack of proper

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 950/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

3 of the Act and the AO has also noted that the amount which are liable for TDS as per the TDS provision for payment to transporters were also not made by the assessee. Therefore, he also applied the provision of section 40a

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

3 of the Act and the AO has also noted that the amount which are liable for TDS as per the TDS provision for payment to transporters were also not made by the assessee. Therefore, he also applied the provision of section 40a

M/S. AMRUT DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 948/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuandshri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek P, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 133ASection 40A(3)

3 of the Act and the AO has also noted that the amount which are liable for TDS as per the TDS provision for payment to transporters were also not made by the assessee. Therefore, he also applied the provision of section 40a

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

ITA 76/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act for the assessment year under question, based on the impounded diaries which disclosed that, (a) payments were made through bearer cheques to sub-contractors and (b) payment made in cash to counter parties other than the subcontractors, the ld. A.R. submitted as under. a) Payment made to through bearer cheques: • Payments

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

ITA 74/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act for the assessment year under question, based on the impounded diaries which disclosed that, (a) payments were made through bearer cheques to sub-contractors and (b) payment made in cash to counter parties other than the subcontractors, the ld. A.R. submitted as under. a) Payment made to through bearer cheques: • Payments

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

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

ITA 75/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act for the assessment year under question, based on the impounded diaries which disclosed that, (a) payments were made through bearer cheques to sub-contractors and (b) payment made in cash to counter parties other than the subcontractors, the ld. A.R. submitted as under. a) Payment made to through bearer cheques: • Payments

AYUB ABDUL KHANDAR TAMATGAR,DHARWAD vs. JCIT, HUBLI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 854/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Years : 2010-11

For Appellant: N.G Rasalkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 40A(3)

40A(3). It is important note that in hiring trucks on needs basis, the truck owner or driver usually insist payment through cash as they don’t have bank account in local banks, and they also need cash liquidity for running and maintenance of truck enroute of carriage of goods to the destination. Thus, considering the facts that most

THE RADDI SAHAKARA BANK NIYAMITHA,DHARWAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HUBBALLI

In the result, the impugned order could not be faulted with

ITA 538/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Parthasarthi and Smt. Sheetal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 40A

3. The ld.AR further submitted before us that the issue involved in this particular case as to whether the assessee has deducted tax at source on payment made to members as already been duly considered by the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2010-11 and 2011- 12 in SP. No.51

SRI. MALLANGOUDS SANKAGOUDASHANI,HUBLI vs. DCIT, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 259/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate

40A(3). Thus the CIT(A) has given part relief only to the extent of double disallowance. He has referred to the details of the expenditure and submitted that the assessee has deducted tax at source on Rs. 34,790/- and the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income. He has pointed out that

ACIT, HUBLI vs. SHRI. MALLANAGOUDA S. SANKAGOUDASHANI, HUBLI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and revenue is dismissed

ITA 295/BANG/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, No.222, 2Nd Floor, The Deputy Commissioner Of Bhavani Arcade, Income Tax, Vs. Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Circle 1(1), Hubli – 580 029. Hubli. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Mallanagouda S. Sankagoudashani, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.222, 2Nd Floor, Income Tax, Bhavani Arcade, Vs. Circle 1(1), Near Basav Vana, N.C.M., Hubli. Hubli – 580 029. Pan: Aeups 7783Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G. Kamaladhar, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kulkarni, Advocate

40A(3). Thus the CIT(A) has given part relief only to the extent of double disallowance. He has referred to the details of the expenditure and submitted that the assessee has deducted tax at source on Rs. 34,790/- and the payment was made before the due date of filing the return of income. He has pointed out that

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), MYSORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 695/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the AO has correctly disallowed for not deducting TDS. Further, ITA Nos.694, 695/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 8 with respect to other payments, assessee has failed to deduct TDS on such payments whereas the assessee is liable to deduct TDS as per Chapter XVII. Therefore, AO has rightly invoked section

MYSORE RACE CLUB LIMITED ,MYSORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, , MYSORE

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 694/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Tharun Kothari, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Subramanian S, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the AO has correctly disallowed for not deducting TDS. Further, ITA Nos.694, 695/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 8 with respect to other payments, assessee has failed to deduct TDS on such payments whereas the assessee is liable to deduct TDS as per Chapter XVII. Therefore, AO has rightly invoked section

SRI. SHAMBULAL G CHHABRA vs. ADDL.C.I.T.,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 1145/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri. Shambulal G. Chhabria, Vs. Additional Commissioner Of No.G-5, Ramanashree Chambers, Income Tax, Lady Curzon Road, Range - 8, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 001. Bangalore. Pan : Abhps 4411 M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.05.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

TDS thereon, the details of assessee’s Fixed Deposit with Canara Bank. The rate of interest paid by the assessee to the unsecured loan creditors is in the range of 9%, 12% and 15%. In our considered view, for the authorities below to invoke the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act, it was necessary

M/S. UNITED BREWERIES LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-7, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2532/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai for Shri K.R. VasudevanFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K., D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 14ASection 37Section 92C

3) of the Act. 15. The Supreme Court, in the case of Steel City Beverages Ltd., considered the issue of whether the bottles and crates can be construed the definition of "Plant" and held bottles those could not be considered as stock in trade. However, the issue that arose before the Supreme Court under the Bihar Sales Tax Supplementary (Deferment

M/S. ORIGAMI CELLULO PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 394/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR-III)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92A(2)Section 92C

TDS Certificates totaling Rs 972 Lacs were fully accounted in the assessee’s books of the relevant year but merely restored the issue for fresh examination by the AO. The order of the Ld. Pr. CIT with reference to issue in clause (a) is therefore set aside. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are accordingly allowed. 22. In Ground

M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2146/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 145A

TDS though nothing cogent has been brought on records that any services has been rendered by the alleged payees? 3. Whether CIT (A) was right on facts and circumstances of the case in allowing relief to the assessee on the issue of addition of Rs 1,51,67,569/- on Coffee purchases made in cash simply stating that the purchases

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S RAMESH EXPORTS PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2206/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 145A

TDS though nothing cogent has been brought on records that any services has been rendered by the alleged payees? 3. Whether CIT (A) was right on facts and circumstances of the case in allowing relief to the assessee on the issue of addition of Rs 1,51,67,569/- on Coffee purchases made in cash simply stating that the purchases