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.

163 results for “TDS”+ Section 12A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi163Mumbai100Bangalore85Kolkata32Lucknow29Ahmedabad29Pune28Jaipur18Hyderabad16Chennai16Chandigarh15Indore13Visakhapatnam13Rajkot6Amritsar6Agra5Varanasi4Jodhpur3Karnataka3Telangana3Allahabad3Surat2Dehradun2Raipur1Rajasthan1Cochin1Jabalpur1Guwahati1Panaji1Nagpur1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 12A112Section 14A50TDS48Section 143(3)38Addition to Income37Section 1132Section 2(15)31Exemption29Section 268A26Disallowance

NIIT FOUNDATION,NEW DELHI vs. CIT(E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4868/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charyniit Foundation, Vs. Cit(E), Plot No. 8, Balaji Estate, New Delhi Sudarshan Munjal Marg, Kalkaji, New Delhi Pan: Aacan3951E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar , CAFor Respondent: Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263Section 80G

12A and recognized u/s 80G (5) (vi) of the Act as per order dated 07.03.2008. It filed its return of income on 23.09.2014 declaring Nil income. 4. The assessee was formed with the following objects:- 1. To promote, support and strengthen education, research and training of Information Technology and its application in all fields of activities and to collaborate

Showing 1–20 of 163 · Page 1 of 9

...
26
Deduction24
Section 36(1)(viia)18

RAM SARAN DAS KISHORI LAL CHARITABLE TRUST,DELHI vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5290/DEL/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Accountnat Member & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: -------] Ram Saran Das Kishori Lal Commissioner Of Income Tax Charitable Trust, (Exemption), Room No.24.05, E-2 Block, 24Th Floor, Civic Centre, A-27, Friends Colony East, Vs New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaatr0783P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv. & Shri Aditya Vohra, Adv. Shri Arpit Goyal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Amit Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.11.2025

Section 127(2)Section 12ASection 2(15)

2. The Ld, CIT(E), Delhi erred in fact and law by failing to notice that there was no transfer of proceedings under Section 12AA(3) / 12AB(4) passed by the CBDT and neither did the order under Section 127 record any consent for transfer as required in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(E), Delhi erred in fact

M/S SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ASIA,,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2657/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Society For Participatory Research In Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Trust Ward-Iii, Asia, 42,Tughlakabad Instutional Area, New Delhi New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aaats1994H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 80G

12A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( In short ‘the Act’) vide an order dated 3.9.1983 and has also been granted exemption under section 80G of the Act. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the appellant society had declared receipts on account of research and training grants of Rs. 15.91 crores, contributions of Rs. 4.18 crores

SOCIETY FOR PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IN ASIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO (E), NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1553/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Ms. Shaily Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(1)Section 12ASection 2(15)

12A has not been withdrawn and as such it is a fact accompli that its objects are-charitable. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee society is a charitable institution and is existing for charitable purpose within the meaning of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act. 4. That the findings

DCIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI vs. NEW DELHI YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION (YMCA), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4983/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2012-13] The D.C.I.T[E] Vs. New Delhi Young Men’S Circle – 2(1) Christian Association Ltd New Delhi 1, Jai Singh Road, Connaught Place New Delhi Pan : Aaatn 1200 H Co No. 83/Del/2016 (A/O Ita No. 4983/Del/2015 [Assessment Year: 2012-13]) New Delhi Young Men’S Vs. The D.C.I.T[E] Christian Association Ltd Circle – 2(1) 1, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi Pan : Aaatn 1200 H [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(b)Section 2(15)

TDS had been deducted on the income of the assessee. That was because the assessee had given its premises on lease and was charging rent on commercial lines since none of the tenants were doing charitable activity. In the background of these facts the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee to explain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI vs. ODIA SAMAJ, NEW DELHI

In the result Cross objections raised by assessee is allowed

ITA 5638/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 194CSection 194JSection 2(15)Section 80G

TDS was deducted under section 194J/C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (‘the Act’) 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the AO/CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the case of the Assessee is not hit by the second proviso to section 2(15) of the Act. 3. That on facts and circumstances

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

ITA 7599/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed

ITO (EXEMPTIONS), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, NEW DELHI

ITA 166/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed

INNOVATIVE WELFARE AND EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,GR. NOIDA vs. ADIT (E), TRUST CIRCLE, NEW DELHI

ITA 7598/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhryito(Exemption), Vs. Innovative Welfare & Ward-1(2), Educational Society, New Delhi Regd. Office: B-19, Defence Colony, New Delhi Pan: Aaati4207R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Kapoor, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 2(15)Section 250

2(15). The assessee has concealed facts from the AO during the first assessment proceedings and furnished incorrect information as well. In view of clear violation of Sec-13(l)(d) r.w.s 13(30 r.w.s 11(5) of Act, 1961, exemption u/s 11 and 12 are denied to the assessee. 6. Hence, the income of the assessee in taxed

DCIT (EXEMPTION), GHAZIABAD vs. M/S. DIVYA YOG MANDIR TRUST, HARIDWAR

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit(Exemptions), Divya Yog Mandir Trust, Room No. 105, 1St Floor, Kripalu Bagh, Cgo-Ii, Vs Kankhal, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Haridwar. Ghaziabad. (Pan: Aaatd1114E) Appellant Respondent Department By: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. Dr Assessee By: Shri Rohti Jain, Advocate Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2019 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rohti Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms nidhi Srivastava, C.I.T. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 43B

section 11, 12A and 12AA of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee trust was allegedly engaged in the business activities through the following business undertakings:- 1. M/s Divya Pharmacy - Manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines 2. M/s Yog Sandesh - Monthly magazine dedicated to Yog and Ayurved 3. M/s Divya Yog Sadhna

DCIT (E),, GHAZIABAD vs. M/S GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORTIY,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2156/DEL/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh.A. D. Jain, Vice-Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Goswami, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 144Section 144A

TDS was deducted. On 30.10.2015, the AO passed the Assessment Order computing the income of Rs.4,62,53,14,224/- against the returned income of Rs. Nil. 6. While completing the assessment, the AO also denied the benefit of exemption u/s 11 of the Act, while the assessee was registered u/s 12A read with section 2

IILM FOUNDAION,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1142/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT (E), NEW DELHI vs. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2675/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2872/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1131/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

ADIT(E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. IILM FOUNDATION, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2871/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amit Shukla(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Adv., Ms. TejasviFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 13Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 143(3)

TDS Aarti Rai 29,750/- Dr. 6. From the above details, Assessing Officer inferred that these payments are in violation of Section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) and on these account the assessee is liable to lose its exemption. He further noted the name of these two persons does not appear as employee of the Banyan Tree

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/334/2022HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/61/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/55/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3 vs. TELSTRA SINGAPORE PTE LTD.

ITA/206/2023HC Delhi24 Jul 2024

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 9

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act brought into force by the Finance Act, 2012 are applicable to domestic laws and the said amended definition cannot be extended to DTAA, where the term has been defined originally and not amended." xxxx xxxx xxxx 26. In view of the above said facts, we hold that there is no merit