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.

171 results for “TDS”+ Section 10A(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore223Delhi197Mumbai171Chennai49Pune40Raipur38Hyderabad33Kolkata32Ahmedabad26Jaipur11Karnataka6Nagpur5Cochin5Cuttack4Surat4Rajkot4Indore4Varanasi2Visakhapatnam1Allahabad1Amritsar1Guwahati1Kerala1Panaji1Patna1Telangana1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 194A84Section 143(3)65Deduction53Section 201(1)52Section 10A48Addition to Income41Disallowance38TDS35Section 4034Section 143

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3717/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

7 dated 16.07.2013 as well as Circular No. 01/2013 dated 17.01.2013 which appear to be conflicting and contradictory to each other; in the former Circular the provision, i.e., Section 10A is referred to as providing for deductions whereas the later Circular uses the expression “exemption” while referring to the provisions of Sections 10A and 10B of the Act. Even

PEOPLE INERACTIVE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. PR CIT 7, MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3558/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...
25
Transfer Pricing24
Section 80I22
ITAT Mumbai
28 Dec 2016
AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 10ASection 147Section 263

7 dated 16.07.2013 as well as Circular No. 01/2013 dated 17.01.2013 which appear to be conflicting and contradictory to each other; in the former Circular the provision, i.e., Section 10A is referred to as providing for deductions whereas the later Circular uses the expression “exemption” while referring to the provisions of Sections 10A and 10B of the Act. Even

ACIT 8(1), MUMBAI vs. CELETRONIX INDIA P. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) बनधम/ Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C/O Jabil Circuit (I) Pvt.Ltd., Tax -8(1), Vs. Arena House, 3Rd Floor, Plot No.103, Room No.210, 2Nd Floor, Road No.12, Opp Tunga Paradise, Aayaker Bhavan, Marol, Midc, Andheri (E), M K Road, Mumbai-400093 Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Aaact7548K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) .. Cross-Objection No.81/Mum/2010 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.5433/Mum/2009 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2003-04) Celetronix India Pvt Ltd, बनधम/ Asstt.Commissioner Of Income Tax 8(1), Vs. Mumbai-400020 (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Ms.Radha K NarangFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjiv Shah, Shailesh
Section 10ASection 10A(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 10A even when the change in share holding pattern of the assessee had taken place in the year 2002-03 of more than 51%. Thus, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee on legal issue. 7.1. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, we find that the assessee has gone into substantial expansion

ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7686/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwallaa/wFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 92C

10A of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income on 18th March 2010, claiming additional TDS. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and in course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has entered into international transactions with its overseas Associated Enterprises (AE) made a reference under

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S THOMSON REUTERS INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by revenue in IT(TP)

ITA 843/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 10ASection 10A(2)Section 143(3)

7. a) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in denying deduction under section 10A of the Act in respect of Titanium STPI Unit. b) That the learned AO and the learned Panel failed to appreciate that Titanium unit is a newly established undertaking and has received STPI approval

ACIT - 8(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SONATA SOFTWARE LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6463/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Circle-8(2)(2) Sonata Software Ltd. बनाम/ Room No.348, 3Rd Floor 208, T.V. Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, M.K Road Estate, S.K. Ahire Marg Vs. Mumbai 400 020 Worli, Mumbai 400 030 (याजस्व /Revenue) (यनधाारयती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aabcs8459D याजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Rai यनधाारयती की ओर से / Assessee By Shri Vijay Mehta ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 आदेश की तायीख /Date Of Order: 21/03/2018

Section 10ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 40Section 9

7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the disallowance have been made under section 40(a)(i) of the Act, which is not at all applicable on the facts of the case. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the assessee has only claimed depreciation and, therefore, no disallowance need to be made. The Ld. Counsel

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT LTU -1, MUMBAI

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5713/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri Porus KakaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 10ASection 115JSection 2(43)Section 37Section 40Section 90

10A / 10AA of the Act. Further, the assessee also declared book profit of ` 40,32,25,37,283, under section 115JB of the Act. Subsequently, on 30th March 2011, the assessee filed a revised return of income enhancing the claim of TDS from ` 139,10,63,978, to ` 160,10,63,978. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer while

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2257/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

10A of the Act. Ground is allowed. 38 WNS Global Services Private Limited 50. With regard to Ground no.8, facts in brief are that during the year assessee earned dividend income from Mutual Funds amounting to Rs 2,09,64,709/- which was claimed as exempt u/s. 10(35) of the Act. The assessee incurred direct expenses in relation

WNS GLOBAL SERVICES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIR 14(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1955/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.2257/Mum/2017 Assessment Year : 2012 -13 Ita No.1955/Mum/2016 Assessment Year : 2011 -12

For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka & Shri Manish KanthFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Sanjay & Smt. Kavita Kaushik
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 92C

10A of the Act. Ground is allowed. 38 WNS Global Services Private Limited 50. With regard to Ground no.8, facts in brief are that during the year assessee earned dividend income from Mutual Funds amounting to Rs 2,09,64,709/- which was claimed as exempt u/s. 10(35) of the Act. The assessee incurred direct expenses in relation

DY.CIT-8(3), MUMBAI vs. SITEL INDIA LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1426/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10ASection 250

TDS. In appeal, learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 21. During the course of hearing, learned AR submitted that the disallowance of communication line expenses and legal and professional charges should be considered for computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act by placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

SITEL INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1777/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain a/wFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 10ASection 250

TDS. In appeal, learned CIT(A) upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. 21. During the course of hearing, learned AR submitted that the disallowance of communication line expenses and legal and professional charges should be considered for computation of deduction under section 10A of the Act by placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGLORE, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4553/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4, MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4767/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4715/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VA;DE; ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4) MUMBAI (EARLIER AO DCITM CIRCLE 11(5) BANGALORE, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4555/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 5 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, BANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4683/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4) MUMBAI(EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGALORE ), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4552/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

DCIT CC -5 (4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. L AND T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4684/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI (EARLIER AO DCIT, CIRCLE 11(5) BANGLORE ., MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4551/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized

LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO M/S L & T VALDEL ENGINEERING LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(4), MUMBAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed and appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed for all assessment years under consideration

ITA 4554/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

7 of the assessee for A. Ys. 2009-10 and 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes.” 3.4.1. On a query being raised by the bench to the Ld. AR, regarding the status of the remand, it was informed that Ld. AO has not passed any remand order in respect of the same till date. The Ld. AR emphasized