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.

18 results for “TDS”+ Section 201(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,552Delhi1,535Bangalore1,096Chennai646Kolkata462Indore368Pune285Ahmedabad285Karnataka257Jaipur223Cochin203Raipur177Hyderabad175Nagpur155Chandigarh127Cuttack88Surat63Visakhapatnam63Lucknow59Jodhpur56Rajkot56Jabalpur50Ranchi40Panaji36Telangana27Amritsar25Agra25Dehradun24Allahabad18Patna17SC13Kerala11Guwahati10Varanasi8Himachal Pradesh6Rajasthan3Orissa3J&K1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E36Section 200A(1)24Section 200A24TDS18Addition to Income14Section 194C13Charitable Trust12Penalty12Section 2016Section 40

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 11/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

2,59,990/- under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the 1961 Act and further , the AO observed that the assessee is also liable for interest under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance of notice dated 18.12.2015 issued by the AO. 6. Aggrieved

5
Section 194J4
Section 2632

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 330/ALLD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

2,59,990/- under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the 1961 Act and further , the AO observed that the assessee is also liable for interest under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance of notice dated 18.12.2015 issued by the AO. 6. Aggrieved

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 329/ALLD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

2,59,990/- under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the 1961 Act and further , the AO observed that the assessee is also liable for interest under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance of notice dated 18.12.2015 issued by the AO. 6. Aggrieved

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

ITA 10/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Adv
Section 194CSection 194JSection 201

2,59,990/- under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the 1961 Act and further , the AO observed that the assessee is also liable for interest under the provisions of Section 201(1A) of the 1961 Act. The assessee on its part had not furnished any details in compliance of notice dated 18.12.2015 issued by the AO. 6. Aggrieved

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 222/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 219/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 220/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 226/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 228/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 225/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC (TDS) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 218/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 227/ALLD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 221/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 224/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 217/ALLD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

ELCHICO HOTELS & RESTAURANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC(TDS), ALLAHABAD

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 223/ALLD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad02 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tanu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh,Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances,we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

ITA 130/ALLD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad13 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Madhuk, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

2 of 5 4. Thereafter, proceedings under section 263 of the Act were initiated, on the ground that on the freight paid during the year, amounting to Rs.9,32,378/- (8,09,896/- + 1,71,216/-), TDS was not deducted and the same should be disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this regard, the assessee filed

KANORIA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. (NOWADITYA BIRLA CHEMICAL(INDIA) LTD,),SONEBHADRA vs. ITO,, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 170/ALLD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad11 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2008-09 Kanoria Chemicals Industries Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer (Tds) (Now Aditya Birla Chemicals Allahabad (India) Ltd.), Renukoot, Sonbhadra Tan/Pan: Aldko0214E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A.K.Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 02 2020

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 201Section 201(1)

section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. None has appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issuance of notice through RPAD, which has not returned unserved. However, we find that this appeal can be disposed of in the absence of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal after hearing the ld. D.R. and after