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.

12 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune283Delhi151Chennai96Bangalore69Visakhapatnam51Mumbai30Karnataka26Jabalpur23Nagpur21Kolkata16Allahabad12Surat11Panaji10Lucknow10Agra8Ahmedabad8Raipur6Rajkot4Indore3Jodhpur2Jaipur2Hyderabad2Cochin1Chandigarh1

Key Topics

Section 234E36Section 200A(1)24Section 200A24Charitable Trust12Penalty12TDS12Addition to Income12

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

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

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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