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.

7 results for “TDS”+ Section 40A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi555Mumbai538Chennai270Bangalore240Kolkata229Jaipur54Hyderabad48Ahmedabad47Indore45Pune34Raipur30Visakhapatnam25Rajkot25Chandigarh22Lucknow19Cuttack19Surat17Patna14Guwahati13Jodhpur12Cochin12Nagpur11Amritsar7Karnataka7Agra5Ranchi4Dehradun4Varanasi4Calcutta3Jabalpur3Allahabad2SC1Telangana1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26021Section 194C4Disallowance4Section 40a3TDS3Section 260A2Section 14A(1)2Section 194H2Section 402Section 201(1)

M/S WIPRO LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/881/2008HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S WIPRO LTD

The appeals stand disposed of, accordingly

ITA/211/2009HC Karnataka25 Mar 2015

Bench: N.KUMAR,B.SREENIVASE GOWDA

Section 260
2
Addition to Income2

TDS of Rs.6,02,14,066/- and advance tax payment of Rs.59,50,80,000/-. The assessee claimed refund of Rs.17,12,21,725/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) on 31.01.2005 and the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.02.2005. A questionnaire was issued on 27.04.2006 calling for certain

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, vs. M/S CORPORATION BANK

In the result, the third substantial question of law is also answered

ITA/427/2015HC Karnataka23 Nov 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 143(1)Section 14A(1)Section 194HSection 260Section 260ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 40a

TDS under section 194H of the Income Tax Act? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the assessee is a Nationalized Bank. The assessee had filed the return of income on 28.09.2011 by which income of Rs.1412,98,.50,750/- was declared. Thereafter, a revised return was filed on 23.12.2011 by which income of Rs.1366

TIMES VPL LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the

ITA/274/2013HC Karnataka17 Oct 2019

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,P.G.M.PATIL

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 260Section 263Section 40

2 of the Circular in which it has been clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes that the provision of Section 194C would not apply in the case of contract of sale and shall be applicable only in case of contract for work. It is therefore submitted that despite recording the finding in favour of the assessee that

M/S TOYOTA KIRLOSKAR MOTOR P LTD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA/245/2018HC Karnataka24 Mar 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,M.G.S. KAMAL

Section 201(1)Section 260Section 260ASection 40a

40a(i) and (ia) of the Act. The assessee thereupon furnished the information vide communication dated 12.08.2013. 4. The Assessing Officer initiated the proceeding under Section 201 and 201(1A) of the Act and treated the assessee as assessee in default in respect of the 6 amount made in provision, which was reversed / un- utilized for a sum of Rs.8

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI G BALRAJ, PWD

In the result, question No

ITA/103/2011HC Karnataka31 Aug 2016

Bench: S.N.SATYANARAYANA,JAYANT PATEL

Section 260

2. Since this matter was admitted, the other matters of the present group are admitted. At the time of admission, the questions are differently framed but considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the above referred question would remain as common in all the matters and additionally one more question can to be formulated

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/494/2022HC Karnataka30 Sept 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Section 260Section 40Section 40A(7)Section 9(1)(vii)

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal’s order can be said as perverse in nature as Tribunal has directed the assessing authority to exclude comparable even when the TPO has chosen proper comparable by application of all required tests? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case