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.

25 results for “TDS”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi663Mumbai515Bangalore373Chennai221Kolkata122Hyderabad114Karnataka109Ahmedabad84Chandigarh78Visakhapatnam67Jaipur64Cochin59Raipur34Indore31Ranchi28Cuttack25Pune25Jabalpur24Surat22Lucknow18Guwahati18Nagpur15Agra7Amritsar7Dehradun6Panaji6SC5Rajkot5Telangana4Patna3Punjab & Haryana2Varanasi2Jodhpur1

Key Topics

Section 12A55Section 1125Section 10(20)24Section 143(3)18Addition to Income17TDS14Section 2639Exemption9Section 1158Section 143(1)

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 611/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Smt. Deepa Sanjay Hiray
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92C

TDS should have been restricted @ 15% as per Article 11 of the India-Italy DTAA. The appellant has referred to section 90 of the Income Tax Act and stated that it overrides provision of section 115

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

7
Section 14A7
Double Taxation/DTAA6
ITA 868/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

Section 115Section 2(24)Section 250Section 3Section 4

section 115-O restrict the assessee to any claim. The relevant portion is reproduced as under: “The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment of tax in respect of the amount declared, distributed or paid as dividends and no further credit therefor shall be claimed by the company

JOHN DEERE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 692/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Acit , Pune Tower.No.14, Magarpatta City, Cyber City, Vs. Hadapsar,I.E.S.O., Pune – 411013 Pan: Aaacj4233B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp :

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

TDS should have been restricted @10% as per Article 10(2) of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement („the DTAA‟ or „the tax treaty‟) read with section 90(2) of the Act. The appellant has referred to section 90 of the Income Tax Act and stated that it overrides provision of section 115

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

ITA 2647/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Section 115JAA of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions and not appreciating that the AO had failed to grant MAT credit Rs.8,70,338/- in impugned year A. Y. 2018-19 and also MAT credit carried forward and eligible for set off u/s 115 JAA amounting to Rs.7,52,74,344/- after having

AUTOCOMP CORPORATION PANSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,PUNE vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

ITA 2646/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

Section 115JAA of the Act. 8. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions and not appreciating that the AO had failed to grant MAT credit Rs.8,70,338/- in impugned year A. Y. 2018-19 and also MAT credit carried forward and eligible for set off u/s 115 JAA amounting to Rs.7,52,74,344/- after having

SHRI CHANDRAPRABHU MAHARAJ DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 672/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh
Section 11Section 115Section 12ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

115 BBI. The exemption is allowed to a trust for the income accumulated in excess of 15% subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. This exemption however shall be withdrawn if such conditions are not complied with by the assessee. As per sec. 11(2) if a trust is not able to apply 85 per cent of its income

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 587/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 200Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

115 24060200018492 26Q Q1 15-Jul-11 08-Sep-12 405 24060200018503 26Q Q2 15-Oct-11 08-Sep-12 313 24060200018514 26Q Q3 15-Jan-12 08-Sep-12 221 24060200018525 26Q Q4 15-May-12 08-Sep-12 116 4. A notice was duly served on the assessee. However, there was no compliance of the said notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. IAC INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 749/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Darpan KirpalaniFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Section 143(2)Section 92Section 92C

section 92CA(1) of the Act in order to determine the Arm‟s Length Price (“ALP”) in respect of such international transactions. 2.2 The assessee undertook the following international transactions with its AEs during AY 2013-14 and benchmarked each transaction by selecting the Most Appropriate Method (“MAM”) mentioned in the table below: Sr. Nature of International Amount

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 692/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144(11)Section 144(7)Section 144BSection 144C(6)(C)

115 5,052,549,778 expenditure B = B1 + Total Expenditure 13,973,517,986 286,543,267 16,160,831 426,743,082 724,939,641 1,454,386,820 171,295,356 12,347,835,810 B2 Operating

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1348/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 274

TDS had been deducted, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment to tax, then issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2018 after recording reasons u/s 147. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income on 26.04.2018. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1554/PUN/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 144C(13)Section 234BSection 274

TDS had been deducted, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion that income had escaped assessment to tax, then issued notice u/s 148 on 29.03.2018 after recording reasons u/s 147. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed return of income on 26.04.2018. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

115 (SC). B. He further submits that the statement given by the assessee during the course of search and seizure proceedings u/s 132(4) has to be considered in its entirety. Drawing our attention to the statement recorded u/s 132(4), which is placed before us at page nos.1 to 26 of the Paper Book, he submits that the statement

GANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,ICHALKARANJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 597/PUN/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(vi)

115. PAN : AACAG4583F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These two appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the different orders

GANGA EDUCATION SOCIETY,ICHALKARANJI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, EXEMPTION , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 598/PUN/2020[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg
Section 12ASection 80G(5)(vi)

115. PAN : AACAG4583F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Deepak Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 06.01.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH: These two appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the different orders

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2979/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Somil AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kumar
Section 144C(13)Section 274

TDS‟) amounting to INR 2,47,666. Ground No.7: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. Briefly, the facts are under : 4. The Appellant TIBCO Software

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1432/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263

section 263 action shows that an enquiry has not been conducted by the assessing officer in the manner it ought to have been conducted and when the Commissioner while issuing the show cause notice had come to the prima facie conclusion that the assessing officer did not conduct an enquiry as required to justify such prima facie opinion, the assumption

DEERE & COMPANY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, INT;. TAXATION, CIRCLE - 1,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/PUN/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Nov 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.178/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Deere & Company Vs. Dcit(International C/O John Deere India Private Transaction), Limited Circle-1, Pune Tower No.14, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411013 Pan: Aadcd3993M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil MuthaFor Respondent: Smt. Divya Bajpai
Section 139(9)Section 246A

TDS has been claimed are different than the total of the receipts shown in the return of income.” 4 4. From the above reply, it clearly emerges that the assessee advanced three reasons leading to difference in the two figures, viz., conversion rates for recording the transactions; reimbursements; and reversals. Insofar as the first reason is concerned, rule 115

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1155/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 543/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 545/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: S/Shri Sham Walve, Special Counsel along with Tanzil Padvekar and Bhavik Chheda
Section 10(20)Section 11Section 12ASection 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS credit. The assessee also took an additional ground before the CIT(A)-I, Thane for allowance of exemption u/s 11. The CIT(A)-I, Thane rejected the additional ground taken by the assessee and exemption u/s 11 had not been allowed to the assessee. Against ITA Nos.1153, 1155 & 1154/MUM/2016 the order of the CIT(A), Thane, the assessee preferred