← All Phrases

“Section 220(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 220Section 220(2)801 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 220(2) is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 220(2)

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
440 ITR 26 · 2022 · High Court
614
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT
74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT
465
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India
63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court
397
citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors.
443 ITR 267 · 2022 · High Court
220
citing judgments

Section 234E fee cannot be imposed for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This applies even when the processing of the return under Section 200A(c) occurred before that date.

Judgments citing Section 220(2)

Kumar Spinning Mills Privae Ltd., Tirunelveli vs. ACIT, TDS, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, this appeal of the Assessee in I

ITA 692/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 154(1)Section 154(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

यकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी दुगा" राव, "याियक सद"य

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1479/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1478/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Late Shri Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1477/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Late Shri Jayeesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1476/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA

Red Rooster Performance (International) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), TDS, Bangalore

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

ITA 536/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahured Rooster Performance Vs The Income Tax Officer (International) Pvt. Ltd. Ward 3(1), Tds B-10, Ngef Industrial Estate Hmt Building, Bellary Road Whitefield Road Bangalore 560032 Mahadevapura Post Bangalore 560048 Pan – Aaecr1751N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mrs. Sunaina, Ca Respondent By: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 02/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 05/08/2022 O R D E R Per: L.P. Sahu, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1042909630(1) Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal Dated 29.04.2022 For Ay 2014-15. 2. The Solitary Substantial Issue Raised By The Assessee Challenges Levying Of Late Fee Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) For The Delay In Remittance Of Tds. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Designing, Modification, Manufacture, Trading Of Prototype

For Appellant: Mrs. Sunaina, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl. CIT
Section 154Section 154(1)(c)Section 156Section 200ASection 220(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 271H(1)(a)

assessee and sought to recover the fees under Section 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Act amounting to Rs.22,400/- and interest under Section 220(2) of the Act. The assessee filed rectification application under Section 154 of the Act seeking nullification under Section 154(1)(c) of the Act stating

Expat Engineering India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 503/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Rajgopal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT Cir 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3697/MUM/2016[1989-90]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jul 2022AY 1989-90

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3697 & 3698/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 1989-90 & 1990-91) M/S M. Visvesvarya Dcit(A)-3(2)(1), R. No. 608, 6Th Floor, Industrial Research & Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, बिधम/ Development Centre Mumbai-400 005 31St Floor, Centre 1, Cuffe Vs. Parade, Colaba, Mumbai – 400 005 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcm0996K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Nimesh Yadav, Ld. Dr अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina & Shri Maneck F. Andhyarujina , Ld. Ars सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 21.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.02.2016, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai For The Ay 1989-90 & 1990-91. 2

For Respondent: Shri Firoze B. Andhyarujina &
Section 220(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Ibm India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 179/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 40

IT(TP)A No.179 /Bang/2022 IBM India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE

M/S Resoive & Fire India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 841/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 201Section 206C(7)Section 215Section 220(2)

1 ITA 841/Mum/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND

Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Ltu-2, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2009-10

ITA 1580/MUM/2020[UNION BANK OF INDIA]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2022

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Gagan Goyal

Section 14ASection 154Section 36(1)

appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13/02/2010 of CIT(A) arising from the order of levy of interest under section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2000-01. The assessee has raised the following grounds 1. The Id. CIT(A) erred ... assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the technical ground that the order passed under section 220(2) is not an appealable order. He has pointed out that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is contrary to various decisions on this

Shri. Manuprasad Trivedi, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 5 (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 7270/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Jain DixitFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

DCIT, CC-5(1) CIT v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd [19961 135 CTR (Guj.) 248, it has been held that interest paid under section 220(2) for late payment of income tax is not deductible as revenue expenditure, In the case of Orient General Industries

Geetha Pundaleeka, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

double taxation. Firstly he is penalized by amount equivalent to TDS along with a penal interest under section 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). Recommendation. Section 40(a)(ia) should drawn/deleted and/or bring suitable amendments

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6076/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6075/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Shakuntala Gupta, Faridabad vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4698/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleasstt. Year 2014-15 Shakuntala Gupta, Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds C/O Rra Taxindia, D- Ghaziabad. 28, South Extension, Part-1 New Delhi – 110 049 Pan Acjpg5891Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 194ISection 200Section 200ASection 201Section 220Section 220(2)Section 222Section 234ESection 3

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

DCIT, Circle- 3(2), New Delhi vs. At&T Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/DEL/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2004-05

For Appellant: Sh. Padampani Bora, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Sharma, Advocate
Section 146Section 220(2)Section 254

also. 5. It could be seen from the impugned order that ld. CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section 220(2) of the Act and also to the circular No. 334 dated 03.04.1992 which says in unequivocal terms that where an assessment order is cancelled under section

M/S. Lanco Infratech Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 363/DEL/2017[2012-13 (F.Y. 2011-12)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Sept 2021

Bench: Sh. K. N. Charydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Pundir, Sr. DR
Section 153Section 201Section 201(1)Section 211Section 220(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. K. N. Chary, Judicial Member Dr. B

Sub Divisional Office Civil Panipat, Panipat vs. ITO TDS, Karnal

ITA 5921/DEL/2016[2015-16 (Ist Qtr)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2021

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ : NEW DELHI) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi vs. Avtar Singh Kochar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7224/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT/DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 220(1)Section 220(2)Section 234A

220(2) at Rs.68,65,627/-. In Bharat Commerce and Industries (supra), Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court observed that “counsel contends that section 220(2) gives power to the authority to levy interest only if the amount specified in any particular demand has not been paid in accordance with section