Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

33 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi241 Mumbai162 Bangalore83 Kolkata58 Karnataka47 Raipur42 Cochin40 Jaipur37 Ahmedabad33 Indore18 Hyderabad16 Chandigarh15 Visakhapatnam12 Jodhpur12 Nagpur12 Lucknow11 Chennai9 Pune8 Agra7 Telangana7 Surat6 Varanasi6 Rajkot6 Panaji5 Jabalpur5 Dehradun3 Ranchi3 SC3 Orissa2 Cuttack2 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 271C110 Section 201(1)48 Section 272A(2)(g)36 Section 4026 TDS26 Penalty22 Section 194I17 Deduction16 Addition to Income14 Section 201

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2679/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

TDS), with penalty under section 271C of the Act being levied for not depositing the TDS in time, while that

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

11

Survey u/s 133A10

ITA 2681/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

TDS), with penalty under section 271C of the Act being levied for not depositing the TDS in time, while that

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2678/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

TDS), with penalty under section 271C of the Act being levied for not depositing the TDS in time, while that

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

TDS), with penalty under section 271C of the Act being levied for not depositing the TDS in time, while that

M/S. GANESH ENTERPRISE.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2308/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2308/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 M/S Ganesh Enterprise, Addl.C.I.T., 205, Shubh House, Vs. Tds, 77, Swastik Soc. Opp. C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.D.R

Section 133ASection 194ASection 201(1)Section 271C

TDS along with interest for Rs. 1,66,763.00 aggregating to Rs. 23,90,275.00 dated 30 July 2015. Subsequently an order under section 201(1)/201(1A) dated 29 February 2016 was passed raising the nil demand. 4.1 However, the proceedings under section 271C

GRINDLY GASES & PETROCHEMICALS P. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE JT. CIT, TDS RANGE, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1388/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Grindly Gases & Petrochemicals P. Ltd. The Jcit, Tds Range 303, B.N. Chambers Vadodara. R.C. Dutt Road Vadodara 390 007. Pan : Aaaccs 7129 F (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri Arvind Kumbhara, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: None

Section 194ASection 271CSection 274

TDS Range, Vadodara vide order dated 28.02.2023, in proceedings initiated for failure to deduct tax at source on interest under section 194A of the Act. 2 2. Facts of the Case 2.1 The brief facts, as culled out from the penalty order under section 271C

GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, BARODA

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

ITA 2846/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271CSection 273B

271C, of the Income- tax Act, 1961 – Deduction of tax at source – Fee for professional or technical services (Penalty for non-deduction of TDS) – Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 – Whether where assessee had not established its case of TDS not applicable on which short-deduction was made by it, it was exigible to levy of penalty under section

GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, BARODA

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

ITA 2847/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 194CSection 194ISection 201(1)Section 271CSection 273B

271C, of the Income- tax Act, 1961 – Deduction of tax at source – Fee for professional or technical services (Penalty for non-deduction of TDS) – Assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 – Whether where assessee had not established its case of TDS not applicable on which short-deduction was made by it, it was exigible to levy of penalty under section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1816/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1818/AHD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1815/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1817/AHD/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

271C of the Act on account of default on TDS payments. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that provisions of Section

RANCHHODBHAI VITTHALBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.CIT,TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 263/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

TDS under Section 194IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked provision of Section 271C of the Income Tax Act as the assessee

SNEHALBEN KAMALBHAI PATEL,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ADDL.CIT,TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 262/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 271C

TDS under Section 194IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked provision of Section 271C of the Income Tax Act as the assessee

THE DCIT,TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2216/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedsl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S) Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. 2216/Ahd/2013 2007-08 Dcit Nirma Limited Tds Circle, Nirma House, Ashram Ahmedabad Road, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan No. Aaacn5350K Revenue By : Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. Dr. Assessee By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. With Shri Himanshu Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.01.2021 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue For A.Y. 2007-08 Which Is Arising From The Order Of The Cit(A)-Xxi, Ahmedabad Dated 13.06.2013, In The Proceedings Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2007-08 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. with Shri Himanshu Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 193Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)

TDS from interest on security is required to be deducted u/s 193. 6) The assessee's claim that section 193 is applicable to Government securities is incorrect. Clause (ii) of section 2(28) itself states that "Debenture or other securities". 7) The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rishikesh Apartment has lost its relevance after

ASHVINKUMAR NARANBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-WARD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.722/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 43, Shankar Society Part-1 Tds Ward-1 V/S. Near Meerambica Road Ahmedabad – 380 014 Opp. Amikunj Bus Stand Naranpura Ahmedabad – 380 013 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aeipp 9274 R अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/07/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.02.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Demand Raised Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) By The Ito, Tds Ward 1, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], In Relation To A.Y. 2015–16. Ashvinkumar Naranbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.DR

Section 194ISection 2(14)(iii)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271C

TDS Default (Rs.) Interest u/s 201(1A) (Rs.) Total (Rs.) Shiholi 70,000/- 60,900/- 1,30,900/- Vastral 1,13,333/- 92,933/- 2,06,266/- Total 1,83,333/- 1,53,833/- 3,37,166/- 3.1. A separate proposal for penalty under section 271C

ARCHANABEN RAJENDRASINGH DEVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, as indicated\nabove

ITA 1465/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER\nAND\nSHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nआयकर अपील सं/ITA No.1465/Ahd/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16\nArchanaben Rajendrasingh\nDeval\nबनाम /\nv/s.\nThe Income Tax Officer\nTDS Ward-1,\nAhmedabad – 380 014\n42, Tirth Bhumi Co-op. Society\nNear Dhara Soap Factory\nNikol Gam Road,\nNikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350\nस्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AHZPD 2745 D\n(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)\nAssessee by :\nShri Jaimin Sha

For Appellant: \nShri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: \nShri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 194ISection 201(1)Section 250

TDS provisions of section 1941A is not\napplicable, which ground is not considered by the CIT(A) and therefore the order\npassed by CIT(A) is against the provision of law and therefore the addition made\nu/s 201(1)/201(1A) require to be deleted.\n4. That the assesse has purchase agriculture land along with her co-owner for\nRs.1

SHANGRILA EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes

ITA 1616/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1616/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S.Shangrila Exports Pvt. Ltd Income Tax Officer- 101, Studio Appt., Nr. Gota Chowdi, Vs. 4(1)(3), Gota, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Ahmedabad-380015. Ahmedabad. Pan: Aafcs5236A

Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 40

TDS an amount paid to deductee and, in turn, deductee also hasn’t offered to tax income embedded in such amount The penalty for tax withholding lapse per se is separately provided under section 271C

RAVI PLANT BIOTECHNOLOGIES LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS, VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1199/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS) passed order under Section 201(1) of the Act treating the assessee as assessee in default and proposed for initiation of penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings under Section 271C

THE DY.DIT, (INTL. TAXN.)- 1,, AHMEDABAD vs. VODAFONE WEST LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2398/AHD/2014[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.2398/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit (International Vodafone West Ltd. बनाम/ Taxation)-1 Vodafone House Ahmedabad Corporate Road V/S. Prahladnagar Off S.G. Highway Ahmedabad-380 051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacf 1190 P अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinal Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue As Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar (Ahmedabad) [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Dated 02/06/2014, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Dy.Director Of Income-Tax (International Taxation)-1, Ahmedabad (Ao) Under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) The Dcit (Intl.Taxn.)-1 Vs. Vodafone West Ltd. Asst. Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr.DR

Section 195(1)Section 201(1)Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90

TDS on these payments. 8.6. Thus, the decisions of the Ld.CIT(A) are upheld. Therefore, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Since the grounds related to applicability of section 195A, 201(1A) and penalty proceedings u/s 271C