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.

26 results for “TDS”+ Section 6Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi55Raipur39Kolkata39Mumbai31Bangalore26Jodhpur19Pune13Ahmedabad12Jaipur10Cochin10Nagpur9Lucknow8Rajkot8Amritsar6Surat6Chennai5Chandigarh4Varanasi3Indore3Hyderabad1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Section 153A24Addition to Income20Transfer Pricing11Section 206C10Section 92C10Section 201(1)9Section 143(3)9Comparables/TP9Section 132(4)8Section 139

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,HUBLI vs. CIT, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1434/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tulajappa Kalburgi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT
Section 156Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 6Section 6A

TDS) Hubli without laying the due emphasis on explanation to section 191 which provides that primary liability of payment of income tax is on the assessee to whom the income belongs. (2) The learned Respondent is not justified in treating the appellant as an assessee in default only on failure to deduct tax at source. Reading together of section

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

8
Section 2(22)(e)8
Deemed Dividend8

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

6A and section 6C shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is framed, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session....... 7. Modification of scheme.—(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to 3 [amend or vary, either prospectively or retrospectively, the Scheme, the 4 [Family Pension] Scheme

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

6A and section 6C shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is framed, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session....... 7. Modification of scheme.—(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to 3 [amend or vary, either prospectively or retrospectively, the Scheme, the 4 [Family Pension] Scheme

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

6A and section 6C shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is framed, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session....... 7. Modification of scheme.—(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, add to 3 [amend or vary, either prospectively or retrospectively, the Scheme, the 4 [Family Pension] Scheme

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)

6a and 6b of assessee’s appeal are regarding disallowance in respect of broadband connectivity charges of Rs. 22,81,251/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act for this reason that no TDS was deducted by assessee. As per the chart submitted by assessee before us, this is the contention raised by him that as per the Tribunal order

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)

6a and 6b of assessee’s appeal are regarding disallowance in respect of broadband connectivity charges of Rs. 22,81,251/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act for this reason that no TDS was deducted by assessee. As per the chart submitted by assessee before us, this is the contention raised by him that as per the Tribunal order

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)

6a and 6b of assessee’s appeal are regarding disallowance in respect of broadband connectivity charges of Rs. 22,81,251/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act for this reason that no TDS was deducted by assessee. As per the chart submitted by assessee before us, this is the contention raised by him that as per the Tribunal order

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

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)

6a and 6b of assessee’s appeal are regarding disallowance in respect of broadband connectivity charges of Rs. 22,81,251/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act for this reason that no TDS was deducted by assessee. As per the chart submitted by assessee before us, this is the contention raised by him that as per the Tribunal order

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)

6a and 6b of assessee’s appeal are regarding disallowance in respect of broadband connectivity charges of Rs. 22,81,251/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of IT Act for this reason that no TDS was deducted by assessee. As per the chart submitted by assessee before us, this is the contention raised by him that as per the Tribunal order

M/S. NARAYANA MINES PRIVATE LIMITED,HOSAPETE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, BANGALORE

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

ITA 334/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 133ASection 206ASection 206CSection 206C(7)

6A). (iii). BECAUSE, the law does not specify the time limit for obtaining the declarations in Form No.27 and the delay in obtaining of the same cannot be the ground for treating the assessee as assessee-indefault u/s 206C(1A). ORDER U/S 206C(7). 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the impugned order levying interest

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 166/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,,MANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1223/BANG/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 163/BANG/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 164/BANG/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 165/BANG/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

MR. A. MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 167/BANG/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1088/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

ACIT, MANGALORE vs. MRS. SHAHANAZ MOHIUDDIN, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessees in ITA

ITA 1118/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Aravind, Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

6A][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponding to Section 2[22][e] of the Income Tax Act, 1961, except where interest is chargeable, as held by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Srinivasan reported in 50 ITR 788. 11. CIT(A) was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee

STATE BANK OF INDIA,HOSPET vs. CIT, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Accounant Member & Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Respondent: Sheri AR V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Section 148Section 191Section 194ASection 201(1)

6A covers all situations and contingencies, and makes the liability absolute, limited on deductor. The sub-section does not provide for issue of notices, assessment, collection or anything connected with the imposition, levy and collection of the tax. Section (4) of the Income tax Act is the charging section and according to said section, tax is levied upon assessee depending

JCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOCON LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 558/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

TDS has not been deducted on the software expenses. Pursuant to the same, a rectification application u/s. 154 was filed by the taxpayer, as the AO/TPO had not complied with DRP directions in relation to recomputing the ALP. Aggrieved by the order of the LdAO, assessee is in appeal before us. Ground No.1-2 are general in nature. Therefore