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.

23 results for “TDS”+ Section 271C(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi240Mumbai162Bangalore99Kolkata58Karnataka47Raipur42Jaipur31Cochin28Ahmedabad23Indore15Chandigarh14Jodhpur12Nagpur11Lucknow10Chennai9Hyderabad8Telangana7Visakhapatnam7Surat6Agra5Jabalpur5Panaji5Pune3Ranchi3SC3Dehradun3Orissa2Rajkot2Varanasi1Kerala1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 271C95Section 201(1)42Section 272A(2)(g)36TDS20Penalty17Section 194I15Deduction10Section 2019Survey u/s 133A8Section 133A

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 does not attract any penalty under section 271C of the Act. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was identical, wherein it noted the question posed for consideration of the Court as to the meaning and scope of the word “failure to deduct” occurred in section 271C(1

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

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 194A6
Addition to Income6

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 does not attract any penalty under section 271C of the Act. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was identical, wherein it noted the question posed for consideration of the Court as to the meaning and scope of the word “failure to deduct” occurred in section 271C(1

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 does not attract any penalty under section 271C of the Act. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was identical, wherein it noted the question posed for consideration of the Court as to the meaning and scope of the word “failure to deduct” occurred in section 271C(1

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 does not attract any penalty under section 271C of the Act. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was identical, wherein it noted the question posed for consideration of the Court as to the meaning and scope of the word “failure to deduct” occurred in section 271C(1

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

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

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 181/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

TDS on purchase of aforesaid properties under Section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 18.02.2020, alongwith order of penalty under Section 271(c) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on purchase of such properties. 7. In appeal before

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 182/AHD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

TDS on purchase of aforesaid properties under Section 194-IA of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act on 18.02.2020, alongwith order of penalty under Section 271(c) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on purchase of such properties. 7. In appeal before

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

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

1)/201(1A) had already been passed on 04.08.2021 holding the assessee to be an assessee-in-default in respect of the said non-deduction. The matter was thereafter taken up for levy of penalty under section 271C. 2.2 In the penalty order, it is recorded that notices under section 274 read with section 271C were issued

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

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

1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 29.11.2019 and the assessee was considered to be default for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked provision of Section 271C

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

1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 29.11.2019 and the assessee was considered to be default for non-deduction of TDS under Section 194IA of the Act. The Assessing Officer invoked provision of Section 271C

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed on 24.08.2016. The assessment order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 and thus the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.63,25,154/- for the TDS

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed on 24.08.2016. The assessment order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 and thus the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.63,25,154/- for the TDS

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed on 24.08.2016. The assessment order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 and thus the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.63,25,154/- for the TDS

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed on 24.08.2016. The assessment order under Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed on 29.02.2016 and thus the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.63,25,154/- for the TDS

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

BANK OF BARODA,BHARUCH vs. THE JT. CIT (TDS), VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 8/AHD/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8/Ahd/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Bank Of Baroda The Jt. Commissioner Of बनाम/ Gnfc Complex Branch, Income Tax (Tds) Vs. Gnfc Corporate Bulding, Baroda Narmadanagar – 392015, Bharuch "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb1534F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/03/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Appellant Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Vadodara-5 (In Short ‘Cit(A)’), Arising Out Of Penalty Order Dated 28.04.2016 Passed By The Jt.Cit (Tds), Baroda, Under Section 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation For 252 Days. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant In Spite Of The Matter Being Listed For Several Occasions & Service Of Notice By Rpad. Upon

For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR
Section 271C

TDS), Baroda, under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The appeal is barred by limitation for 252 days. None appeared on behalf of the appellant in spite of the matter being listed for several occasions and service of notice by RPAD. Upon ITA No. 8/Ahd/2021 (Bank