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.

211 results for “TDS”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,964Delhi5,876Bangalore2,776Chennai2,464Kolkata1,762Pune1,559Ahmedabad1,249Hyderabad1,053Cochin814Indore756Jaipur719Patna559Chandigarh554Raipur494Karnataka417Nagpur415Visakhapatnam381Cuttack346Surat342Rajkot269Lucknow211Amritsar182Jabalpur150Jodhpur130Dehradun125Ranchi124Agra89Guwahati81Panaji81Telangana70Allahabad67Varanasi28SC26Calcutta21Kerala17Rajasthan9Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 206C106Section 234E84TDS74Addition to Income46Section 143(3)42Section 15440Section 26339Deduction38Natural Justice33Section 11

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 304/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to the employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5

STATE BANK OF INDIA,,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

Showing 1–20 of 211 · Page 1 of 11

...
32
Section 4023
Limitation/Time-bar23
ITA 305/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Lucknow
27 Apr 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to the employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5

STATE BANK OF INDIA, FUND SETTLEMENT OFFICE,KANPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS)-II, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 22/LKW/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to the employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5

S.B.I RBO III (ADMIN OFFICE),KANPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 76/LKW/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(5)Section 192Section 201Section 201(1)

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to the employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5

M/S. APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-I, LUCKNOW

In the result, appeals vide I

ITA 357/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 14A read with Rule 8D was made\nsolely on the basis of investment by Assessee Company in SPVs without\nverifying objects of investment and understanding of relevant provision of law.\nIt is also submitted that section 14A carries heading 'Expenditure\nincurred in relation to income not includible in total income'\n\nAs per Section 14A:- 'For the purpose

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

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

ITA 490/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

section 10(5) The reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in respect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such reimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

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

ITA 488/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

section 10(5)\nThe reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in\nrespect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such\nreimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA, OVERSEAS BRANCH,KANPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), KANPUR

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

ITA 487/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

section 10(5)\nThe reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in\nrespect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such\nreimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

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

ITA 491/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

section 10(5)\nThe reimbursement has been allowed by the assessee to the employee in\nrespect of the journey performed by her outside India. Therefore, such\nreimbursement was not exempt u/s 10(5) of I.T. Act and was liable for TDS

BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, ADMINISTRETIVE OFFICE,KANPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), KANPUR

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

ITA 489/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 10(5)Section 250Section 271CSection 273B

Section 273B of the Act 1961. 5. That the grounds of appeal as pleaded before the Learned CIT (Appeal) are relied upon the appeal before the Hon'ble Member, IITAT. 6. That the Learned CIT (Appeal) has erred in law in rejecting the appeal arbitrarily and in utter disregard of the submission made before him. I.T.A. Nos.487 to 491/Lkw/2024

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

ITA 3/LKW/2004[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1995-96

Bench: Sh. Subhash Malguria & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyinterest Tax Appeal Nos.3 & 4/Lkw/2004 A.Ys.1995-96 & 1996-97

For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

TDS were not applicable to this transaction and therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not an interest received by the assessee on loans/advances, within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, it held that the provisions of section 5

M/S U.P STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KANPUR vs. ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VI, KANPUR

ITA 4/LKW/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Oct 2025AY 1996-97
For Appellant: Sh. Pankaj Shukla, Adv & ShubhamFor Respondent: Sh. Puneet Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 17Section 2Section 2(5)Section 2(7)Section 8(2)

TDS were not applicable to this transaction and therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not an interest received by the assessee on loans/advances, within the meaning of section 2(7) of the Interest Tax Act. Therefore, it held that the provisions of section 5

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S U.P RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 314/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

TDS. The appellant contends that disallowance is uncalled for as the expenditure incurred is part of the computation under section 28 of the Act and the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be resorted to only in case of expenses being incurred under section 30 to section 38 of the Act. 5

UTTAR PRADESH RAJKIYA NIRMAN NIGAM LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 317/LKW/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2010-11 Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman V. Dcit Nigam Limited Range Vi Vishweshariya Bhawan Lucknow Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit V. Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Range Vi Limited Lucknow Vishweshariya Bhawan Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaacu5701F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, Fca Department By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 17 05 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: These Cross-Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, Lucknow, Dated 10/3/2017 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Sole Ground Of Appeal, Taken By The Assessee In Its Appeal In Ita No.314/Lkw/2017 Is, As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)
Section 194CSection 198Section 40

TDS. The appellant contends that disallowance is uncalled for as the expenditure incurred is part of the computation under section 28 of the Act and the section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be resorted to only in case of expenses being incurred under section 30 to section 38 of the Act. 5

ASTT. COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD., LUCKNOW

In the result, appeal of the Revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 66/LKW/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow05 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 The Asstt. Commissioner V. M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd Of Income Tax B-9, Vibhuti Khand Central Circle Ii Gomti Nagar Lucnow Lucknow Pan:Aadca5639H (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.19/Lkw/2017 [In Ita No.66/Lkw/2017] Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Apco Infratech Pvt. Ltd V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of B-9, Vibhuti Khand Income Tax Gomti Nagar Central Circle Ii Lucknow Lucnow Pan:Aadca5639H (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Neil Jain, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 80Section 80I

5 of the appeal of the Revenue. 19. Ground No.6 of the appeal of the Revenue relates to the deletion of addition of Rs.6,75,950/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the said disallowance vide paras 14.1 to 14.3 of his order, observing as under: “14.1 Ground

STETE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-, KANPUR

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

ITA 391/LKW/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

5) of the Act, the Assessing Page 4 of 12 I.T.A. No.390 & 391/Lkw/2023 Officer (TDS)-II created a demand of Rs.1,34,035/- under section

STATE BANK OF INDIA, SMECCC-CODE-5030,KANPUR vs. ITO(TDS)-2, KANPUR

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

ITA 390/LKW/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 10(5)Section 201

5) of the Act, the Assessing Page 4 of 12 I.T.A. No.390 & 391/Lkw/2023 Officer (TDS)-II created a demand of Rs.1,34,035/- under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

TDS can not held to be non disclosure of the full particulars. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that the notice under Section 147 of the Act to the petitioner stands vitiated in non compliance or fulfilment of the second condition as laid down in the proviso to Section 147 of the Act.” Shri Anil Kumar

M/S HINDUSTAN SEVA TRUST,SHAHJAHANPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/LKW/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. S.H. Usmani, CIT DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80GSection 80G(5)Section 80G(5)(ii)

section 80G(5) is delayed by 462 days. The assessee has filed condonation petitions for the delay, in which it has been submitted that the returns of the trust were being filed by one practitioner, Sh. Prabhjot Singh of Bareilly, who use to also advise on taxation matters. The communications with respect to the Trust were being sent