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.

4 results for “TDS”+ Section 246Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi178Indore134Mumbai123Chennai114Pune87Raipur35Bangalore33Cochin26Dehradun26Jabalpur23Kolkata19Nagpur14Chandigarh13Surat11Panaji10Visakhapatnam9Hyderabad9Jaipur9Amritsar8Jodhpur7Lucknow7Karnataka4Ahmedabad4Cuttack3Allahabad2Agra1

Key Topics

Section 234E20Section 200A19Section 10(108)10Section 143(1)4Section 2003Section 10(100)2Section 246A2Section 250(6)2Exemption2Deduction

ANUKOOL FURNITURE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 539/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2015-16 Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Acit, B-12, Doctor House, Nr. Parimal Vs Cpc-Tds, Railway Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ghaziabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aabca 6053 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "त् यथ" "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25Th January 2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.74,000/- Which Was Imposed Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. With The Assistance Of The Learned Representatives, We Have Gone Through The Record Carefully. It Emerges Out From The Record That The Assessee Failed To Submit Its Tds Return Well In Time During The Accounting Period Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, A Penalty Under Section 234E Of The Act Amounting To Rs.74,000/- Was Imposed Upon The Assessee. Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit Ay : 2015-16 2

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr DR
Section 154Section 200A
2
TDS2
Section 234E

TDS statements and it has been held by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani V. Union Of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Gujarat) that a machinery provision cannot override the substantive provision of law. The relevant part of judgment is reproduced as below: "19. In plain terms, section 200A of the Act is machinery

BLUE RIVER REALTY PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are dismissed

ITA 36/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri S.V. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Shyam Prasad, Sr. D.R
Section 200Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234ESection 3

TDS, Gaziabad, the Assessing Officer has levied fees u/s. 234E of the Act for delay in furnishing the submission of tax deduction at source and levied fees u/s. 234E of the Act to the amount of Rs. 89,065/- 4. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2388/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

246A. The conclusion of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law. 3. The Ird. CIT(A) has erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements

JAYESHKUMAR TULSIDAS SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD 7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2387/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Gohil, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr. DR
Section 10(100)Section 10(108)Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250(6)Section 251

246A. The conclusion of the CIT(A) is contrary to facts and law. 3. The Ird. CIT(A) has erred in refusing to adjudicate the exemption claim u/s 10(108) on merits, thereby violating section 250(6) mandating a reasoned and speaking order on each ground of appeal. The impugned order is non- speaking, arbitrary, contrary to statutory requirements