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.

73 results for “TDS”+ Section 80G(5)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai92Delhi73Bangalore41Ahmedabad36Chandigarh27Kolkata18Chennai14Jaipur12Pune11Hyderabad9Indore9Lucknow7Rajkot6Surat4Amritsar3Jodhpur2Allahabad2SC2Agra2Ranchi1Cuttack1Dehradun1Raipur1

Key Topics

Section 80G64Section 143(3)55Section 14A51Section 12A45Deduction41Addition to Income41Disallowance36Section 2(15)27Section 1126Section 80I

INTERGLOBE TECHNOLOGY QUOTIENT PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 95/DEL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2020-21

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 199Section 250Section 251(2)Section 80G

5) of the Companies Act are also eligible for deduction's 80G of the Act ITA No. 1523/Del./2022 subject to satisfying the requisite conditions prescribed for deduction w/s 80G of the Act. For this purpose, the issue is remanded to the file of AO to examine the same whether the payments satisfy the claim of donation's 80G

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4

23
Section 92C23
TDS22

ACIT-CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON vs. TERADATA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, GURGAON

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1430/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

TERADATA INDIA PVT LTD,GRUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 2337/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

TERADATA INDIA P.LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-3(1), GURUGRAM

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for AY 2018-19

ITA 1248/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 80G

5. That once working capital adjustment is granted no separate adjustment on account of outstanding receivables is maintainable. Part II-Corporate Tax Grounds 6. Denial of deduction under Section 80G. 6.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned AO has erred in disallowing the deduction of INR 21,47.646/- claimed under section 80G

ACTION ALLIANCE FOR RECYCLING BEVERAGE CARTONS ('AARC'),NEW DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7685/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Chary

Section 12ASection 194Section 80Section 80G

80G. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a society and filed an application in form 10A and 10G on 29th January, 2019 seeking registration u/s.12AA and exemption u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire dated 19.02.2019 requesting it to submit certain documents in support

ACTION ALLIANCE FOR RECYCLING BEVERAGE CARTONS ('AARC'),NEW DELHI vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7684/DEL/2019[-]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2020

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Sh. K. N. Chary

Section 12ASection 194Section 80Section 80G

80G. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a society and filed an application in form 10A and 10G on 29th January, 2019 seeking registration u/s.12AA and exemption u/s.80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld. CIT(E) issued a questionnaire dated 19.02.2019 requesting it to submit certain documents in support

DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

TDS Office on the basis of disallowance of Rs. 2,69,241 being made in the draft assessment order. 14. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making an addition of Rs. 463 in respect of contribution to Employee State Insurance wrongly considering the date of payment to be beyond

EXL SERVICE.COM (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT (LTU), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal by the assessee as well as ofthe department are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 302/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 302/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit, Tower-B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda New Delhi District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 615/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs Exl Service.Com (India) Pvt. Ltd., 414, 4Th Floor, Dlf Jasola, Tower- Tax, Circle-1 (Ltu), New Delhi-110017 B, Plot No. 10 & 11, Dda District Centre, Jasola, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaace5174C Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Adv. Sh. Abhishek Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Piyush Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Piyush Jain, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 92D

TDS Office on the basis of disallowance of Rs. 2,69,241 being made in the draft assessment order. 14. The Ld. AO erred in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case by making an addition of Rs. 463 in respect of contribution to Employee State Insurance wrongly considering the date of payment to be beyond

PLANMAN CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5753/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed ignoring the fact that TDS has been deposited before the due date of filing the return and in view of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) the same are allowable during the year under consideration. (iii)Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, TDS being deposited in the succeeding year

PLANMAN CONSULTING (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 5752/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anjula Jain, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40Section 80G

ii) That the disallowance has been confirmed ignoring the fact that TDS has been deposited before the due date of filing the return and in view of the amendment to section 40(a)(ia) the same are allowable during the year under consideration. (iii)Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, TDS being deposited in the succeeding year

HERO MOTOCORP LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

5 of the appeal of the assessee is against an addition of Rs. 3.02 lakhs by estimating the value of the scrap lying in stock as at the end of the relevant previous year on hypothetical and national basis. Ld. assessing officer on perusal of the significant accounting policies mentioned in scheduled 12 of the financial statements for the financial

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii) to the proviso. [Para 153] It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in clause (b) of Section 10(46) of the IT Act, "Commercial" has the same meaning as "trade, commerce, business" in Section 2(15) of the IT Act. Therefore, sums charged by such notified body, authority, board, trust or commission (by whatever name

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

II, III, IV & V GROUND VI: ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS 6.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT erred in holding that the activity carried out by the Appellant is in the nature of trade, commerce or business and accordingly, it is hit by the proviso

MMTC LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2074/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Mmtc Ltd, Circle-16(2), Core-1, Scope Complex-7, New Delhi Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent) Mmtc Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core-1, Scope Complex-7, Range-5, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

section 14A applying Rule 8D but confirmed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs. 13,20,000/-with respect to administrative expenditure. The disallowances of Rs. 4,99,579/- u/s 80G on donation of Rs. 9,99,158/- was confirmed holding that the above expenditure is neither allowable u/s 35AC nor u/s 80G of the Act. With respect

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MMTC LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, ground No. 5 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 2981/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary(Through Video Conferencing) Dcit, Vs. Mmtc Ltd, Circle-16(2), Core-1, Scope Complex-7, New Delhi Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent) Mmtc Ltd, Vs. Addl. Cit, Core-1, Scope Complex-7, Range-5, Industrial Area, Lodhi Road, New New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaacm1433E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sohail Malik, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 35ASection 80GSection 92C

section 14A applying Rule 8D but confirmed the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs. 13,20,000/-with respect to administrative expenditure. The disallowances of Rs. 4,99,579/- u/s 80G on donation of Rs. 9,99,158/- was confirmed holding that the above expenditure is neither allowable u/s 35AC nor u/s 80G of the Act. With respect