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.

359 results for “TDS”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,455 Mumbai1,097 Pune393 Bangalore359 Chennai327 Hyderabad232 Raipur201 Ahmedabad174 Jaipur169 Kolkata132 Chandigarh120 Visakhapatnam80 Nagpur79 Indore61 Rajkot48 Lucknow47 Cochin45 Cuttack44 Surat42 Jodhpur37 Dehradun30 Guwahati24 Agra22 Patna16 Panaji15 Amritsar15 Jabalpur13 SC13 Bombay10 Ranchi8 Allahabad4 Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income48 TDS41 Penalty39 Section 271(1)(c)38 Section 25037 Deduction37 Section 143(3)29 Disallowance27 Natural Justice26 Section 40

M/S. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1)(4), BANGLAOORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2332/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore

Showing 1–20 of 359 · Page 1 of 18

...

25

19 Sept 2022

AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 45

TDS is compensatory in nature and not in the nature of Penalty. The ITAT held that remittance of TDS is not the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed while appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2550/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

TDS is compensatory in nature and not in the nature of Penalty. The ITAT held that remittance of TDS is not the same

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD., ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 534/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

TDS within the prescribed time. But, in our view, Section 234E cannot be read in isolation and is required to be read with the mechanism and the mode provided for its enforcement. As observed by us hereinabove, when Section 234E was inserted in the Act simultaneously, Section 271H was also inserted in the Act providing for the penalty

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 535/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

TDS within the prescribed time. But, in our view, Section 234E cannot be read in isolation and is required to be read with the mechanism and the mode provided for its enforcement. As observed by us hereinabove, when Section 234E was inserted in the Act simultaneously, Section 271H was also inserted in the Act providing for the penalty

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 533/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

TDS within the prescribed time. But, in our view, Section 234E cannot be read in isolation and is required to be read with the mechanism and the mode provided for its enforcement. As observed by us hereinabove, when Section 234E was inserted in the Act simultaneously, Section 271H was also inserted in the Act providing for the penalty

ROOMAN TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)& TDS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 536/BANG/2025[2015-16 Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Jul 2025

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. Vinod Gard, CAFor Respondent: Shri. R. Rajamanohar, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore

Section 2Section 200ASection 234ESection 271(1)(a)Section 271H

TDS within the prescribed time. But, in our view, Section 234E cannot be read in isolation and is required to be read with the mechanism and the mode provided for its enforcement. As observed by us hereinabove, when Section 234E was inserted in the Act simultaneously, Section 271H was also inserted in the Act providing for the penalty

KOOUD SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 82/BANG/2022[2013-14 (24Q-QII)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri George George K & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Tyagi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh D, JCIT(DR)

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234Section 234E

TDS within the prescribed time. But, in our view, Section 234E cannot be read in isolation and is required to be read with the mechanism and the mode provided for its enforcement. As observed by us hereinabove, when Section 234E was inserted in the Act simultaneously, Section 271H was also inserted in the Act providing for the penalty

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1075/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

TDS 803723.00 2 Penalty -ESI and Professional Tax 1669730.00 3 Gifts 100750.00 4 DKA Statue Expenses 181075.00 5 Input Tax Credit

SRI SRINIVASA TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1076/BANG/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Feb 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Siva Prasad Reddy & Shri BalachandranFor Respondent: Ms. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 2(45)Section 80G

TDS 803723.00 2 Penalty -ESI and Professional Tax 1669730.00 3 Gifts 100750.00 4 DKA Statue Expenses 181075.00 5 Input Tax Credit

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, section 201(1A) is a distinct provision

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2136/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, section 201(1A) is a distinct provision

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2137/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, section 201(1A) is a distinct provision

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, section 201(1A) is a distinct provision

M/S KARNATAKA EMTA COAL MINES LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2139/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &

Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

penalty if the TDS deduction is not effected for any valid reason. However, section 201(1A) is a distinct provision

GEETHA PUNDALEEKA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G. Venkatesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

TDS, it causes injustice & subjects the deductor to unfair & arbitrary treatment. The provision of section 40(a)(ia) penalizes the deductor over and above the provisions of penalty

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 682/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

TDS provisions. As such, the purpose of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is to make the assessee aware that he should face multiple consequenceson account of non-deduction of tax including levy of demand u/s 201(1), interest u/s 201(1A) and penalty

SAP INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (A) BANGALORE-6, BANGALORE

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

ITA 683/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 28Section 36(1)(vii)

TDS provisions. As such, the purpose of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) is to make the assessee aware that he should face multiple consequenceson account of non-deduction of tax including levy of demand u/s 201(1), interest u/s 201(1A) and penalty

M/S. STATE BANK OF INDIA,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS RANGE- 3, BANGALORE

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

ITA 2/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.H.Muralidhar, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Priyadarshi Mishra, JCIT-DR

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 192Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source on LTC. The assessee-bank has failed to deduct TDS

IBM UNITED KINGDOM LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 497/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

TDS AO as per section 197 of the Act in order to understand its tax liability. 4.2 Specific observation by the AO with respect to penalty