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.

15 results for “disallowance”+ Section 194C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai542Kolkata407Delhi394Chennai205Bangalore193Ahmedabad60Hyderabad42Indore36Jaipur35Raipur33Rajkot30Pune16Karnataka15Nagpur15Amritsar14Cuttack13Cochin13Surat13Visakhapatnam12Panaji12Chandigarh11Lucknow10Allahabad9Guwahati9Ranchi7Kerala7Patna6Dehradun4Calcutta4Jodhpur3Agra3SC3Jabalpur1Gauhati1Telangana1Uttarakhand1Varanasi1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 194C19Section 4017Section 26017TDS10Section 260A9Disallowance8Deduction7Addition to Income7Section 10A6Section 143(3)

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MARUTI SUBRAY PATIL

The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms

ITA/5027/2010HC Karnataka29 Jul 2015

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi Malimath & The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice G. Narendar

Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 260Section 260ASection 40

194C of the IT Act. Upon noticing the discrepancy, the assessee was called upon to explain. Whereupon it was claimed by the assessee that there is no sub-contract and that he has loaded the vehicle whichever had come to the site and that the heading “freight paid” is a misnomer and a factual error and that the amount paid

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S SRI. PRABHULINGESHWAR SUGARS

In the result, the appeals stand dismissed

6
Section 194C(3)5
Section 194J4
ITA/100070/2016HC Karnataka20 Nov 2017

Bench: S.SUJATHA,H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 260ASection 40

disallowing the claim of the assessee-respondent under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act towards non-deduction of TDS on packing materials. The assessee preferred an appeal against the said order of assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/141/2020HC Karnataka21 Apr 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

Section 143(2)Section 194Section 2Section 206ASection 40Section 80J

6 SCC 584, more particularly para 13 thereof which is reproduced hereunder: 13. The source of employment, the method of recruitment, the terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment are not at all relevant for deciding whether or not a person is a workman within the meaning of Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRIDHAR SHANTINATH PATRAVALI,

ITA/100026/2015HC Karnataka13 Jan 2017

Bench: This Court : I. Whether On Facts & In Law The Tribunal Is Right In Ignoring The Provisions Of Second & Third Provisos To Section 194C(3), As Per Which The Assessee Respondent Was Under Obligation To Furnish Particulars Of The Declaration Filed By The Sub-Contractors In Form No.15-I Within Due Date I.E., 30.06.2008, In The Manner Prescribed I.E., Form No. 15J, To The Prescribed Authority & Failure To Do So, Attracts Violation Of Provisions Of Section 194C(3) Viz., Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia)?

Section 143(3)Section 194C(3)Section 260ASection 263Section 40

194C(3) of the Act had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the said amount was disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the assessing order, dated 21.01.2013, he had filed an Appeal before the CAT. By order dated 09.10.2013, the learned CAT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5 6

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

194C of the Act on the cost of advertisement space, the amount requires to be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In the notice, it is 6

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. JANANI TOURS & RESORTS (P) LTD

Appeal is allowed

ITA/365/2009HC Karnataka19 Jan 2015

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,N.KUMAR

Section 194CSection 260ASection 40

Section 194C of the Act when the - 6 - controversy was with resp[ect to the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.

Accordingly, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA/200003/2014HC Karnataka09 Aug 2016

Bench: B.VEERAPPA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 194CSection 194JSection 201(1)Section 260Section 32Section 40

6 charges under Section 194J of the Act and also in respect of payments towards composite contracts for setting up electric sub-station under Section 194C of the Act. 7. The assessment was completed by an order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 30.11.2011 wherein the income of the assessee was determined

PR COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S WIPRO LIMITED

In the result, the appeal is disposed of in terms

ITA/464/2017HC Karnataka09 Dec 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

Section 10ASection 260Section 260ASection 32

6. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the tribunal relied on the assessee's case for the Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2007-08 pertaining to depreciation claimed on software, which was treated as royalty. However, it is pointed out that the decision of 15 this court in 383 ITR 179 does not cover the issue as the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD

Appeal is dismissed;

ITA/414/2022HC Karnataka06 Feb 2023

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 194JSection 201Section 201(1)Section 260Section 40

disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act even though the interpretation in the Tribunal’s judgment rendered provisions under section 194C(2) and Explanation (C) to Section 194J otiose?” 3. Heard Shri E.I. Sanmathi, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants-Revenue and Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar, learned Advocate for the respondent-Assessee. 4. At the outset, Ms.Tanmayee Rajkumar submits 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

disallowances made under Section 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

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S LUWA INDIA PVT LTD

RP/333/2012HC Karnataka22 Jun 2012

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH,N.KUMAR

Section 260

194C; (v) “rent” shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) “royalty” shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub- section (1) of section 9; By Finance Act, 2010, the said provision is substituted by the following: Substituted by the Finance Act, 2010, w.e.f

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S APIGEE TECHNOLOGIES

ITA/138/2016HC Karnataka03 Jul 2018

Bench: S.SUJATHA,VINEET KOTHARI

Section 194CSection 194cSection 260Section 260ASection 92C

194c of the act” and the assessing officer had rightly disallowed a sum of Rs.5,14,595/- bearing an amount on which the assessee had failed to deduct TDS as per provisions of the Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal is right in law in holding assessing authority is not right in treating

RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARRE KARKHANE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF

In the result, the impugned order dated

ITA/100111/2015HC Karnataka25 Nov 2019

Bench: N.S.SANJAY GOWDA,ALOK ARADHE

Section 260ASection 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is applicable to the whole contract amount and not to the amount payable at the end of the year. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. The relevant extract of the order passed by the Tribunal reads as under: “6. We have considered

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD

ITA/60/2014HC Karnataka30 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 260Section 9(1)(vii)

194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended that assessee was not aware as to how the consortium partners had utilized the 10% of the Contract amount given as ‘Mobilization Amount’. 6. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with BMRCL’s reply, treated it as ‘an assessee in default’ and levied tax and interest thereon under Section

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD.,

ITA/59/2014HC Karnataka30 Jun 2022

Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

Section 260Section 9(1)(vii)

194C or 194J would not apply. It was also contended that assessee was not aware as to how the consortium partners had utilized the 10% of the Contract amount given as ‘Mobilization Amount’. 6. The Assessing Officer, not being satisfied with BMRCL’s reply, treated it as ‘an assessee in default’ and levied tax and interest thereon under Section