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.

51 results for “TDS”+ Section 80G(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai117Delhi97Bangalore51Ahmedabad44Chennai28Chandigarh28Kolkata24Pune17Jaipur16Lucknow12Hyderabad11Indore9Rajkot8Surat4Agra3Amritsar3Raipur3Ranchi3Allahabad2SC2Jodhpur2Cuttack1Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 80G31Addition to Income30Section 8021Section 12A20Deduction20Disallowance20TDS18Transfer Pricing17Section 1114Section 143(3)

GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 298/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 144C(10)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS under section 192 of the Act, giving rise to double taxation on the same transaction. 4. Disallowance of corporate social responsibility expenses claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act 4.1 The Honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount of INR 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. CANARA BANK, BENGALURU

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 37(1)11
Exemption11

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 297/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessmentyear: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Abharana &Anantham, A.RsFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 250

TDS is not to be deducted. It is very relevant to note that at the time of Acquisition Act was enacted, Central Government had issued a Notification No. SO 710 dated 16/02/1970 [1970] [Reported in 75 ITR (Stat) 106] which reads as under:- 58. Income-tax Act, 1961: Notification under sec. 194A(3)(iii)(f) Notification

M/S. GOLDMAN SACHS SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2355/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleit(Tp)A No.2355/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S. Goldman Sachs Services Pvt. Ltd., Wing A, B & C, Helios Business Park, 150, Orr, Kadubeesanahalli, Bangalore-560103 ….Appellant Pan Aaccg 2435N Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Special Range 3, Bangalore. ……Respondent.

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

TDS under section 192 of the Act, giving rise to double taxation on the same transaction. 6. Disallowance of corporate social responsibility expenses claimed as deduction under section 80G of the Act 7 IT(TP)A No.2355/Bang/2019 6.1 The honorable DRP and the learned AO have erred in law and on facts in disallowing an amount

DIVYA DINESH ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2194/BANG/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Sudheendra B.R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 80G

section 80G of the Act is not sustainable. Therefore, we hereby set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the AO to recompute the total income by allowing the set off of short-term capital loss as claimed by the assessee. Hence, the ground of appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. 10. In the result

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

80G of the Act. The assessee trust is engaged in charitable activities, including education and healthcare. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the donation made by the assessee to another trust on the ground that the recipient trust was not registered under section 12A of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11 of the Act, a charitable trust

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

80G of the Act. The assessee trust is engaged in charitable activities, including education and healthcare. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the donation made by the assessee to another trust on the ground that the recipient trust was not registered under section 12A of the Act. As per the provisions of section 11 of the Act, a charitable trust

M/S ZEENATH TRANSPORT COMPANY ,BELLARY vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, BELLARY

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1780/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 135Section 37Section 37(1)

2,40,00,000/- 2012-13 Contribution towards flood relief as per the MOU with Government of Karnataka 2013-14 --do-- 1,40,14,000/- 2014-15 --do-- 8,78,704/- Page 34 of 41 ITA Nos.1780 - 1782/Bang/2018 10.5 He submitted that the above payments were made by assessee in accordance with the MOU dated 2/7/2010 which is placed

SRI KRISHNARAJENDRA CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2011/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member Sri.Krishnarajendra Charitable The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions) Trust, Bangalore Bangalore Palace Compound, Vs. Jayamahal Road, Jc Nagar, Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: R.E. Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra CIT DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

80G. We also notice that Ld.CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus 5 respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above mentioned decisions we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi) of the Act to Ld.CIT

WIPRO LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 370/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Huilgol, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihallli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80G

80G of Rs. 4,05,98,408/- and 80IAB of Rs. 585,09,09,819/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and other statutory notices were issued to the assessee and assessee also responded to the notices. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 10AA being profit of SEZ units. The total income also comprises

M/S. VIMALALAYA HOSPITAL TRUST,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 1435/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

2. It has been submitted that assessee had made an application under section 80G on 06/10/18. It was submitted that assessee was granted certification under section 12AA of the Act, vide certificate dated 17/07/98 placed at page-10 of paper book, which is valid as on date. Further, assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) was satisfied with activities carried

M/S. JITO BELGAUM CHAPTER,BELAGAVI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2091/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2019 – 20

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT – DR
Section 12Section 12ASection 80Section 80GSection 80G(5)(vi)

80G. We also noticed that Ld. CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above referred decisions, we remand the question of grant of approval under section

AMERICAN POWER COVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1319/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.1319(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri C.H.Sundar Rao, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 92C

80G of the Act was not substantiated. IT(TP)A No.1319(B)/2011 10 2.5 Ld.AO observed that assessee entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, and therefore for determining arms length price of international transaction, case was referred to Ld.TPO. 2.5.1 Ld.TPO upon receipt of reference called for economic analysis of international transaction entered into by assessee

M/S. CHIRANTHANA,BENGALURU vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), BENGALURU

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

ITA 2014/BANG/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2020AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member M/S. Chiranthana The Commissioner Of F-25, 1St Floor, Income Tax (Exemptions) Shriram Sardhana Apartments, Bangalore Behind M.S Ramaiya Residency, Vs. Bangalure, Karnataka, 560006 Pan : Aabtc808K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: R.E. Balasubramanian, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra CIT DR
Section 12ASection 80Section 80G(5)(vi)

80G. We also noticed that Ld.CIT(E) has not examined the application of assessee in terms of section 80 G (5) of the Act. Thus, respectfully following the view taken by coordinate benches of this Tribunal in above referred decisions, we remand the question of grant of approval under section 80 G (5) (vi) of the Act to Ld.CIT

AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ADDL.C.I.T., BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated herein above

ITA 1111/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 1111/Bang/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, CA
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

80G of the Act was not substantiated. 2.5 Ld.AO observed that assessee entered into international transaction with its associated enterprises, and therefore for determining arms length price of international transaction, case was referred to Ld.TPO. 2.5.1 Ld.TPO upon receipt of reference called for economic analysis of international transaction entered into by assessee. 2.5.2 From documentation so filed, it was observed

SRI. BEVAHALLI GANGAPPA RAMAKRISHNAPPA,,KOLAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 732/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nishal B., D.R
Section 115BSection 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 234Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

80G deduction of Rs, 1,62,710/- . The AO added Rs.2,00,46,877/- being cash deposits made during the entire financial year in to two Axis Bank accounts held in the names of Deccan Hospital and Deccan Pharma as income under section 69A. Further Rs. 26,61,208/- being other non-cash credits in these two banks were also

M/S. DESHPANDE EDUCATIONAL TRUST,HUBLI vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HUBLI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1422/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt Asha Vijayaraghavan

For Appellant: Shri H. N. Khincha, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Tshering Ongda, JCIT
Section 11Section 12ASection 2

TDS in part. 3. The appeal for A. Y. 2011 – 12 is filed late by the assessee and the delay is of 16 days. The assessee has made an application for condonation of delay and it is stated in this that the assessee is based at HUBLI and considerable time elapsed in identifying the chartered accountant in Bangalore for preparation

CANARA BANK,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU,, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1899/BANG/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT (D.R)
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 40

TDS and its remittances. 15.2 We have heard the rival contentions, perused and carefully considered the material on record. It was prayed by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee that this issue may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for submission of the relevant details and examination, verification thereof. The learned Departmental Representative too submitted that

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 387/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 205/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced

M/S. GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals filed by assessee for the years under consideration are disposed of as under:

ITA 2301/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Anmol Anand and Ms. Priya Tandon AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 234BSection 234DSection 26Section 27Section 271(1)(c)

80G -- -- Representative 8. -- -- assessee Claim for deduction – 9. -- -- proviso to 40(a)(i) 10. MAT Credit -- -- 11. TDS Credit -- -- Incorrect Refund 12. -- -- Calculation 13. Education Cess -- -- Interest u/s. 234B -- -- Interest u/s. 234D -- -- 14. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. -- -- 271(1)(c). 2.1 However, for the sake of convenience, grounds raised by the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 are reproduced