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.

18 results for “TDS”+ Section 801Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi80Mumbai61Hyderabad45Kolkata30Ahmedabad25Bangalore18Indore13Jaipur10Chennai7Cuttack7Patna6Rajkot5Nagpur4Lucknow3Raipur2Calcutta1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 14A54Section 80I34Disallowance17Addition to Income13Section 142(1)11Section 10A10TDS10Section 408Section 143(3)5Deduction

M/S. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1) , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 755/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G Manoj Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS cannot be claimed as a deduction. I submit that if this Hon'ble Bench permits the deduction on the ground that some person has to claim the deduction of section 80IA, it would amount to grave injustice. This kind of interpretation may lead to claim of double deduction. Further, due emphasis is to be made on the facts

4
Limitation/Time-bar4
Section 803

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1956/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

801A of the Act. 5.4.1 Moreover, the observation of CIT(A) in para 8 of his order has not been refuted by the assessee. it has been noted thereunder that for claiming the duty exemption on the imported steam turbine, the assessee has not declared that said steam turbine was meant for operating an independent power generation unit

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

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 207/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

801A of the Act. 5.4.1 Moreover, the observation of CIT(A) in para 8 of his order has not been refuted by the assessee. it has been noted thereunder that for claiming the duty exemption on the imported steam turbine, the assessee has not declared that said steam turbine was meant for operating an independent power generation unit

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1957/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

801A of the Act. 5.4.1 Moreover, the observation of CIT(A) in para 8 of his order has not been refuted by the assessee. it has been noted thereunder that for claiming the duty exemption on the imported steam turbine, the assessee has not declared that said steam turbine was meant for operating an independent power generation unit

M/S.L.G PETROCHEMICALS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

In the result, the disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of the I

ITA 1955/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.S.Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80I

801A of the Act. 5.4.1 Moreover, the observation of CIT(A) in para 8 of his order has not been refuted by the assessee. it has been noted thereunder that for claiming the duty exemption on the imported steam turbine, the assessee has not declared that said steam turbine was meant for operating an independent power generation unit

DCIT vs. M/S FIZA DEVELOPERS & INTERTRADE PVT. LTD.,,

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed statistical purposes

ITA 1026/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Dilip for K.V. Arivind, Standing CounselFor Respondent: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.R
Section 131Section 153ASection 68Section 80Section 80I

TDS on it. In view of the above, it is presumed that the assessee is not in the position to reconcile the difference. Hence, the difference amount of Rs 3,81,76,654/-is treated as bogus credit and added as undisclosed income of the assessee for the AY 2007-08. (Add: 3,81,76,654/-)” Finally the assessing officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 5(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S. NEOBYTES SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.,, BENGALURU

In the result appeal filed by revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1108/BANG/2017[2009 - 10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2019

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

For Appellant: Shri S.V.Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr.P.V.Pradeep Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 10ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 8

801A(10) and 10A(7) are also not attracted in the present case. Under the circumstances, the disallowance of Rs.3,18,86,593/- as deduction under section 10A as made by the AO on account of noon-charging of Director’s remuneration is deleted. The ground nos.3,4,5,6 & 7 are allowed”. We are of considered opinion that commercial

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 725/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 482/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 724/BANG/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 484/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 483/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 486/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 727/BANG/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 723/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1 & TPS, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 726/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1) & TPS, MANGALURU vs. NEW MANGALORE PORT AUTHORITY, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue on this for the Assessment Years

ITA 485/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Jain and Shri. Pankaj Soni, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran D, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 142(1)Section 14ASection 80I

TDS claimed (probably), the learned Counsel was unable to provide any explanation. Considering the facts of the case, we deem it fit to remit back this issue to the JAO for a fresh consideration. We have also gone through the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa cited supra. The assessee was unable to demonstrate that section

M/S. ABB LIMITED(FORMERLY ASEA BROWN BOVERI LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1227/BANG/2007[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Reddy, Sr. Counsel
Section 28Section 80Section 801ASection 80I

801A are net profits derived from the industrial undertaking and therefore they will have to be Page 8 of 19 ITA Nos.1227 & 1256/Bang/2007 netted afteradjusting all the expenses attributable to them in terms of the provisions contained in sections 28 to 43 of the I.T. Act. Therefore all expenses, whether they are direct or indirect or fixed, semi-fixed