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.

34 results for “TDS”+ Section 5Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai129Chennai36Bangalore34Delhi17Raipur17Pune9Hyderabad6Jaipur6Kolkata5Ahmedabad4Karnataka4Lucknow2Visakhapatnam2Panaji1Indore1

Key Topics

Addition to Income24Section 2(15)21Section 1114Section 214TDS12Disallowance12Section 115J10Section 143(3)10Section 409Exemption

DCIT vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 469/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

5a & 5b, it is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that issue involved in this ground is regarding software expenses of Rs. 44,87,282/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and this ground may be decided on similar line as per ground no. 18 in Assessment Year 2006- 07. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders

M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA P. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 143(2)8
Section 201(1)8
ITA 335/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

5a & 5b, it is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that issue involved in this ground is regarding software expenses of Rs. 44,87,282/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and this ground may be decided on similar line as per ground no. 18 in Assessment Year 2006- 07. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders

M/S. TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1339/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

5a & 5b, it is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that issue involved in this ground is regarding software expenses of Rs. 44,87,282/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and this ground may be decided on similar line as per ground no. 18 in Assessment Year 2006- 07. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders

TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 604/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

5a & 5b, it is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that issue involved in this ground is regarding software expenses of Rs. 44,87,282/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and this ground may be decided on similar line as per ground no. 18 in Assessment Year 2006- 07. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TIMKEN ENGINEERING & RESEARCH INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 686/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurawala, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Panda, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

5a & 5b, it is submitted by ld. AR of assessee that issue involved in this ground is regarding software expenses of Rs. 44,87,282/- by treating the same as capital expenditure and this ground may be decided on similar line as per ground no. 18 in Assessment Year 2006- 07. The ld. DR of revenue supported the orders

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 442/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. B V Vidyulatha &
Section 17(2)Section 18Section 18ASection 21Section 3(8)(b)Section 7A

5A of the Act. Further as per section 5AA, the Central Government by way of notification in the official gazette constitutes the executive committee to assist the central board in performance of its functions. It is noted that the committee under the central board are the officials from Central and State Government and as per section

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 444/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. B V Vidyulatha &
Section 17(2)Section 18Section 18ASection 21Section 3(8)(b)Section 7A

5A of the Act. Further as per section 5AA, the Central Government by way of notification in the official gazette constitutes the executive committee to assist the central board in performance of its functions. It is noted that the committee under the central board are the officials from Central and State Government and as per section

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 443/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Ms. B V Vidyulatha &
Section 17(2)Section 18Section 18ASection 21Section 3(8)(b)Section 7A

5A of the Act. Further as per section 5AA, the Central Government by way of notification in the official gazette constitutes the executive committee to assist the central board in performance of its functions. It is noted that the committee under the central board are the officials from Central and State Government and as per section

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, HUBBALLI vs. M/S. DAVANAGERE URBAN CO-OP BANK LTD, DAVANAGERE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1815/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M Narasimha Raju, JCITFor Respondent: Smt. Soumya K, Advocate
Section 1Section 194(3)Section 194ASection 194A(3)(v)Section 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS in view of the provisions of section 194A(3) of the Act. I have perused the written submissions, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, A Bench, Bangalore in the case of The Bagalkot District Central Co-operative Bank Limited Vs JCIT, Bijapur and the CBDT Circular No.9/2002 dated 11/09/2002 which the appellant has relied in support

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1, SHIVAMOGGA vs. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI K T, SHIVAMOGGA

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1298/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Shivamogga. ….Appellant Pan Vs. Smt. Jayalakshmi K T, Sri Krishna Transport, Savarkar Nagar, Shivamogga. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 40

TDS agggerating to Rs.2,00,54,750/- and Assessed total income of Rs.2,09,70,380/- and passed the order under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). Whereas the CIT(Appeals) considered the grounds of appeal, findings of the Assessing Officer and submissions made

MR.RAHIL MAHESH KUMAR NIZAMUDDIN ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 892/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.Y. Ningoji Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.S. Chakrapani, D.R
Section 48Section 54FSection 55A

TDS made by OMR Investments to be the sale consideration at Rs.1,61,92,000/- paid to assessee for another business of land agreed to sold under agreement to sell dated 2.4.2014. Thus, he submitted that the AO has considered the land transferred in the assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.18,54,25,000/- as per amount reflected in form

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE [BBMP],BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER [TDS], WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 99/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V.Chandrasekar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R.)
Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS) Ward – 1(1), Bangalore, dated 17.03.2015 passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.98 & 99/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 7 2. The assessee, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) is a local authority overseeing the development and provision of civic amenities of the city of Bengaluru. In consideration

BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE [BBMP],BENGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, [TDS], WARD- 1(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

ITA 98/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Vice- & Shri B.R.Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. V.Chandrasekar,AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT (D.R.)
Section 194LSection 201Section 201(1)

TDS) Ward – 1(1), Bangalore, dated 17.03.2015 passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). ITA Nos.98 & 99/Bang/2020 Page 2 of 7 2. The assessee, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) is a local authority overseeing the development and provision of civic amenities of the city of Bengaluru. In consideration

SHRI NARANDAR PUGALIA,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(2)(3), BENGALURU

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1767/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia(Smc)

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale
Section 68

5a) The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and further the computation of interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant expressly urges that the period

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

ITA 317/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

TDS was not deducted in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and expenses incurred in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that when the assessee has declared in the return of income the total income after making disallowance

M/S.RAICON ENGINEERS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

In the result, ITA No.316/Bang/2017 is allowed, while ITA

ITA 316/BANG/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40Section 40A(3)

TDS was not deducted in view of the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and expenses incurred in cash in violation of section 40A(3) of the Act. The plea of the assessee was that when the assessee has declared in the return of income the total income after making disallowance

M/S. GOKULAM SHELTERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), , BANGALORE

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

ITA 44/BANG/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Mar 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, D.R
Section 115JSection 33

TDS 5,432 Deferred tax income (4,83,088) Total tax expenses 35,59,014 3.1 The computation of book profits in the ITR form filed is reproduced below; Schedule MAT – Computation of Minimum Alternate Tax payable under section 115JB 1 Whether the profit and Loss account is prepared in Yes accordance with the provisions of Parts II of Schedule

SRI. KEDAR AJIT KENY,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 119/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Navaneeth N. Kini, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao B., D.R
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 295(2)(ha)

TDS certificate under the US Tax laws) issued by Fidelity Investments, which fits into the requirement of rule 128(8)((ii)(b) — Available with me and can be made available for verification . 4. I am covered by sec 5A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein me and my wife (Mrs. Priyanka Kedar Keny [PAN ASRPK 5732 G]) are governed

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2088/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

ITA 2087/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 11Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(15)

section 11 of the IT Act cannot be denied by invoking 1st proviso to section 2 (15) if the primary/ dominant objects are not (a) in the nature of trade, commerce or business; or (b) rendering any service in relation to any trade, commerce or business. 4.29 It is reiterated that the Assessee’s main objects do not involve carrying