← All Phrases

“Section 201(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 201Section 201(1)1,701 judgments

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 454/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Nair, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 201(1)

grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Appellant could not have been deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act if the employee had furnished the return of income, taken into account ITA Nos. 453&454/Ahd/2026 State Bank of India Bhavnagar ... were issued to the assessee asking it to explain as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and liable for interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the LFC benefit was granted strictly

STATE BANK OF INDIA BHAVNAGAR PARA BRANCH,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO TDS WARD 1, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 453/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Nair, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 192Section 201(1)

grounds, the CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Appellant could not have been deemed to be an assessee in default under section 201(1) of the Act if the employee had furnished the return of income, taken into account ITA Nos. 453&454/Ahd/2026 State Bank of India Bhavnagar ... were issued to the assessee asking it to explain as to why it should not be treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and liable for interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. 4. In response, the assessee submitted that the LFC benefit was granted strictly

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. TARUN SANTRAMDAS VARMA, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2549/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 250Section 46A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 574/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 201(1)

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौर"ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

DISTT WOMAN & CHILD DEV OFFICER VIDISHA,VIDISHA vs. ITO (TDS)-2, BHOPAL

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 573/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
Section 201(1)

government department, filed appeals against orders of the CIT(A) which upheld orders passed by the AO. The AO had initiated proceedings under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for alleged non-deduction of TDS.", "held": "The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed ... years were also remanded. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the AO.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "201(1)", "201(1A)" ], "issues": "Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the consensus between the parties

CONSCIENT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 73(1), DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurpose

ITA 6586/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 194Section 194ASection 194CSection 201Section 201(1)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nDELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\n

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALEM vs. TIRUCHENGODE MUNICIPALITY, TIRUCHENGODE

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

ITA 3686/CHNY/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3685 & 3686/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25 Income Tax Officer, V Tiruchengode Municipality, Tds Ward, Room No.205, 2Nd S No.1, Kasari Street, Municipal Floor, Old Building, Income Tax Office, Tiruchengode, Office, No.3, Gandhi Road, Namakkal – 637211, Salem – 636007. Tiruchengode. Pan: Aaalt1024H Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Ranchi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2023-24 & 2024-25 Both Dated 08.10.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These

Section 19Section 194Section 201(1)Section 250

deduct the TDS on interest payments made is not acceptable Hence the assessee deductor was rightly treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and 201(14) 3. The Ld. AddI/JCIT (A), RANCHI erred in overlooking the fact that the liability to deduct the TDS by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALEM vs. TIRUCHENGODE MUNICIPALITY, TIRUCHENGODE

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

ITA 3685/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3685 & 3686/Chny/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2023-24 & 2024-25 Income Tax Officer, V Tiruchengode Municipality, Tds Ward, Room No.205, 2Nd S No.1, Kasari Street, Municipal Floor, Old Building, Income Tax Office, Tiruchengode, Office, No.3, Gandhi Road, Namakkal – 637211, Salem – 636007. Tiruchengode. Pan: Aaalt1024H Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 05/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 17/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Ranchi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2023-24 & 2024-25 Both Dated 08.10.2025. For The Sake Of Convenience, Both These

Section 19Section 194Section 201(1)Section 250

deduct the TDS on interest payments made is not acceptable Hence the assessee deductor was rightly treated as an assessee in default under section 201(1) and 201(14) 3. The Ld. AddI/JCIT (A), RANCHI erred in overlooking the fact that the liability to deduct the TDS by the assessee

BALKRISHNA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-TDS, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statical purpose in above terms

ITA 547/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

{ "clean_text": "ITA No. 547/Rjt/2025\nBalkrishna Industries Limited vs. DCIT\n\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

GOLFWORX VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 74(3), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 8736/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2013-14 Golfworx Ventures Private Ltd., Vs Ito, E-256, Third Floor, Ward 74(3), Greater Kailash, Part-I, Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadcg4034C

For Appellant: Shri Anshul Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250

which was wrongly placed before the Ld. CIT(A) during the course of appeal against the order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) and relying upon the same, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by the assessee, which, in our considered opinion, is a mistake apparent on the face

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT(OSD) TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5660/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

made to DCP under section 194C of the Act. Thus, the AO held the appellant as 'assessee in default within the meaning of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and raised demands accordingly. Therefore, in order to decidethe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, it is imperative ... thereon, has considerable persuasive value since it is not only the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra) but also a subsequent amendment in section 201(1) where a proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 where a person would not be in default in case the payee has (i) furnished his return

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5434/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

made to DCP under section 194C of the Act. Thus, the AO held the appellant as 'assessee in default within the meaning of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and raised demands accordingly. Therefore, in order to decidethe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, it is imperative ... thereon, has considerable persuasive value since it is not only the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra) but also a subsequent amendment in section 201(1) where a proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 where a person would not be in default in case the payee has (i) furnished his return

M3M INDIA PVT. LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5433/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

made to DCP under section 194C of the Act. Thus, the AO held the appellant as 'assessee in default within the meaning of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and raised demands accordingly. Therefore, in order to decidethe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, it is imperative ... thereon, has considerable persuasive value since it is not only the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra) but also a subsequent amendment in section 201(1) where a proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 where a person would not be in default in case the payee has (i) furnished his return

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5432/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

made to DCP under section 194C of the Act. Thus, the AO held the appellant as 'assessee in default within the meaning of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and raised demands accordingly. Therefore, in order to decidethe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, it is imperative ... thereon, has considerable persuasive value since it is not only the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra) but also a subsequent amendment in section 201(1) where a proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 where a person would not be in default in case the payee has (i) furnished his return

M3M INDIA PVT.LTD.,GURGOAN vs. JCIT OSD TDS CIRCLE, GURGAON

ITA 5431/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. S.S. Nager, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT,DR
Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)

made to DCP under section 194C of the Act. Thus, the AO held the appellant as 'assessee in default within the meaning of sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act and raised demands accordingly. Therefore, in order to decidethe grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, it is imperative ... thereon, has considerable persuasive value since it is not only the Hindustan Coca Cola case (supra) but also a subsequent amendment in section 201(1) where a proviso has been inserted w.e.f. 01.07.2012 where a person would not be in default in case the payee has (i) furnished his return

HIMACHAL MITRA MANDAL CO OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(3), MUMMBAI

ITA 9059/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Sofiya Shanmugam &For Respondent: Ms. Deepika Arora
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(4)

order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT(A)-2, Noida in relation to order dated 31/03/2021 passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2014-2015. While dealing with the applicability in Section 194A(3)(v) of the Act read ... with Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, the Tribunal held that the Assessee was not a bank but merely a credit cooperative society. Therefore, we set aside the Order, dated 06/10/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to the Learned CIT(A) to adjudicate

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8287/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Rs.1,50,000/-. Consequently, the Ld. AO raised a demand for short deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- under section 201(1) of the Act, along with interest of Rs.1,02,600/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8286/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Rs.1,50,000/-. Consequently, the Ld. AO raised a demand for short deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- under section 201(1) of the Act, along with interest of Rs.1,02,600/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8285/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Rs.1,50,000/-. Consequently, the Ld. AO raised a demand for short deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- under section 201(1) of the Act, along with interest of Rs.1,02,600/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred

M/S SUGEE TEN DEVELOPERS LLP,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2(2)(4),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 8284/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR
Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Rs.1,50,000/-. Consequently, the Ld. AO raised a demand for short deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,35,000/- under section 201(1) of the Act, along with interest of Rs.1,02,600/- under section 201(1A) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred

Showing 1–20 of 1,701 · Page 1 of 86

...