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.

240 results for “TDS”+ Section 206C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore240Pune235Delhi182Chennai154Mumbai62Kolkata46Raipur44Cochin28Ahmedabad26Karnataka26Jabalpur23Jodhpur20Nagpur20Jaipur19Rajkot18Indore14Surat12Panaji10Lucknow8Dehradun8Himachal Pradesh6Chandigarh6Hyderabad6Cuttack5Amritsar5Guwahati4Visakhapatnam3Telangana2Varanasi2Calcutta1SC1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 234E191Section 200129TDS95Section 206C89Section 200A70Section 271H32Section 20129Section 200(3)26Deduction26Section 154

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

Showing 1–20 of 240 · Page 1 of 12

...
19
Condonation of Delay9
Addition to Income9

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

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

6) of section 94; or (b) to give the notice of discontinuance of his business or profession as required by sub-section (3) of section 176; or (c) to furnish in due time any of the returns, statements or particulars mentioned in section 133 or section 206 or section 206C or section 285B; or (d) to allow inspection

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

6 of 12 prior to Section 271H of the Act inserted in the statute book, the enforceability of requirement to file return under Section 200(3) and Section 206C(3) was by virtue of Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act which provided for the penalty of Rs. 100/ - per day for each day of default in filing TDS

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)
Section 250

206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under section 272A(2)(k) is done away in view of the insertion of section 271 H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about section 234E, section 271 H and the aforesaid proviso to section 272A

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,HUBLI vs. CIT, HUBLI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1434/BANG/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Tulajappa Kalburgi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, JCIT
Section 156Section 191Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206Section 206CSection 206C(6)Section 6Section 6A

TDS) Hubli without laying the due emphasis on explanation to section 191 which provides that primary liability of payment of income tax is on the assessee to whom the income belongs. (2) The learned Respondent is not justified in treating the appellant as an assessee in default only on failure to deduct tax at source. Reading together of section

SRI. SINGONAHALLI CHIKKAREVANNA GANGADHARAIAH,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 785/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt.Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Sri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 194CSection 194C(3)Section 201Section 28Section 30Section 40

6) shall furnish, to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by it, such particulars, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (i)“specified person” shall mean,— (a) the Central Government or any State Government; or (b) any local authority; or (c) any corporation established

M/S. HOTEL ASHOK GARDEN ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , HUBLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 13/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 206CSection 254

6 of 10 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no collection of tax shall be made in the case of a buyer, who is resident in India, if such buyer furnishes to the person responsible for collecting tax, a declaration in writing, in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that

M/S. HOTEL ASHOK GARDEN ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , HUBLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 12/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 206CSection 254

6 of 10 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no collection of tax shall be made in the case of a buyer, who is resident in India, if such buyer furnishes to the person responsible for collecting tax, a declaration in writing, in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that

M/S. HOTEL ASHOK GARDEN ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , HUBLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 14/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 206CSection 254

6 of 10 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no collection of tax shall be made in the case of a buyer, who is resident in India, if such buyer furnishes to the person responsible for collecting tax, a declaration in writing, in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that

M/S. HOTEL ASHOK GARDEN ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), , HUBLI

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 15/BANG/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Smt. Preethi S. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 206CSection 254

6 of 10 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no collection of tax shall be made in the case of a buyer, who is resident in India, if such buyer furnishes to the person responsible for collecting tax, a declaration in writing, in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that

CICILIA PINTO,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 622/BANG/2021[2014-15(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 156Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234ESection 234E(3)Section 243E(3)Section 250Section 3

section 206C" 5. Therefore, once the TDS statement has been accepted without late fee, then such late fee cannot be recovered later on. In the view of the above late fee cannot be recovered later on by way of any notice, no notice of demand u/s 156 can be issued for this. 6

CICILIA PINTO,MANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 621/BANG/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Vanaja, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R
Section 156Section 200Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234ESection 234E(3)Section 243E(3)Section 250Section 3

section 206C" 5. Therefore, once the TDS statement has been accepted without late fee, then such late fee cannot be recovered later on. In the view of the above late fee cannot be recovered later on by way of any notice, no notice of demand u/s 156 can be issued for this. 6

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 166/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 167/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 165/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions

M/S. MADANTHYAR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS MADANTHYAR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,),MADANTHYAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 169/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Smt. Prathibha R, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Susan D. George, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012.” 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The Assessee’s contention before CIT(A) was that the provisions