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.

93 results for “TDS”+ Section 220clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi585Patna469Mumbai394Bangalore149Pune126Hyderabad98Chennai93Karnataka91Visakhapatnam57Kolkata55Jaipur52Cochin48Raipur33Ahmedabad33Chandigarh32Lucknow32Indore31Nagpur19Rajkot10Kerala8Ranchi7Amritsar5Agra4Jodhpur4Cuttack4Surat4Dehradun3Varanasi2SC2Panaji2Rajasthan1Telangana1Guwahati1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 234E163Section 200A127Section 14A81TDS60Section 220(2)39Section 15435Section 4035Disallowance29Deduction24Section 200A(1)(c)

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3061/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

22
Condonation of Delay21
Addition to Income20

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3065/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD 1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3064/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3063/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: 17.12.2025
Section 154Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 3

TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2020/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q3)-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2015/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q2)-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2018/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q2)-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2019/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q3)-26Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2016/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q3)-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2017/CHNY/2018[2013-14(Q4)-24Q]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1832/CHNY/2025[2013-14 FY 2012-13 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS
Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1833/CHNY/2025[2013-14 FY 2012-13 (Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS
Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1834/CHNY/2025[2014-15 FY 2013-14 (Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS
Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS, SALEM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1836/CHNY/2025[2014-15 fy 2013-14 (q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS
Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS, SALEM

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1835/CHNY/2025[2014-15 fy 2013-14 (q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T. S. LakshmiFor Respondent: Mr.Veeramany.K., IRS
Section 154Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

K.R.DEVENDRIER SON,SALEM vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALEM

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

ITA 2953/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2953/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 K.R. Devendrier Son, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 176, Fort Main Road, Shevapet, Tds Ward, 3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 002. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Aacfk0776D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Sriniranjini, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru R.L.Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Dated 29.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Fees Levied Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni
Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 206CSection 234E

TDS statement and also provided that failure to pay tax specified in the intimation shall attract levy of interest as per provisions of section 220

AVA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 499/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 12.05.2022
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 220Section 234E

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the Respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent . 10. Appellants pray that the learned AO be directed

AVA SOFTWARE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 497/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Ms. Hemalatha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 12.05.2022
Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 220Section 234E

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the Respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent . 10. Appellants pray that the learned AO be directed

SSS CONSTRUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC , CHENNAI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3497/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3495 To 3504/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S. Sss Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 678, T.H.Road, . Income Tax, New Washermanpet, Cpc-Tds , Chennai-600 081. Ghaziabad. Pan: Abnfs 8664G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 12.04.2022
Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

TDS statement U/s 200A is bad in law. The Ld. CCIT demanding Interest U/s 220(2) and Late Fee U/s 234E is contrary to law. 3. The amendment by finance Act, 2015 made to Section

SSS CONSTRUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC , CHENNAI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3498/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3495 To 3504/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S. Sss Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 678, T.H.Road, . Income Tax, New Washermanpet, Cpc-Tds , Chennai-600 081. Ghaziabad. Pan: Abnfs 8664G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. G. Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 12.04.2022
Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

TDS statement U/s 200A is bad in law. The Ld. CCIT demanding Interest U/s 220(2) and Late Fee U/s 234E is contrary to law. 3. The amendment by finance Act, 2015 made to Section