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.

10 results for “TDS”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi314Mumbai233Bangalore111Hyderabad40Ahmedabad30Pune16Kolkata16Agra16Jaipur13Ranchi13Indore12Chennai10Lucknow9Chandigarh9Guwahati8Cochin8Jodhpur7Rajkot7Nagpur6Surat4Allahabad4Raipur4Jabalpur3Visakhapatnam1SC1

Key Topics

Section 234A15Section 143(3)9Section 1487Section 234B6Section 1476Section 234C5Addition to Income5Section 143(2)4Section 1394TDS

SWAMINATHAN SUKUMAR,SALEM vs. ITO, WARD-1(6), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1105/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 140B(3)Section 140B(3)(i)Section 140B(3)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 234F

TDS of\nRs.25,632/-. The CPC, in processing the return under section\n143(1), levied additional tax under section 140B(3)(ii) at 50%\n(instead of 25%) and computed interest under section 234A

4
Reassessment2
Transfer Pricing2

GVR ASHOKA CHENNAI CORR LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2621/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Mr. Dharan V. Gandhi, ARFor Respondent: 20.11.2025
Section 140A(1)Section 143(1)Section 234A

TDS was subsequently rectified, CPC continued to levy interest under section 234A up to March 2022, which the assessee disputed

M/S. CASTLEWICK FZE,DUBAI vs. ACIT,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 459/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 234ASection 9(1)(vii)

TDS u/s.195 of the Income\nTax Act, 1961.\nIt is clear that the Tribunal has given the finding after considering the\ndecision of the co-ordinate bench as well as decision of Hon'ble\nMadras High Court in the case of Bangkok Glass Industry Co. Ltd. Vs.\nACIT (supra). In view of the above discussion and by following the\ndecision

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, TRICHY vs. NEELARAJ VINOTH, PERAMBALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1982/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 154Section 234A

TDS in his various\nROls filed for this year, of which the original ROI and the 1st revised\nROI were filed prior to the search. This being the case, the seized\nletter did not reveal anything new to the Department and thus the\nsame can never be touted as an incriminating material bringing to\nlight some undisclosed income or undisclosed

SHANMUGASUNDARAM VENKATACHALAPATHY,TIRUNELVELI, TAMILNADU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, TIRUNELVELI, TIRUNELVELI

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act which is consequential. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, before commencement of during proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 2. The assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 3 ITA2056/Chny/2024 Shri Shanmugaundaram Venkatachalapathy

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT,

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 584/CHNY/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak, CA &For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

234A of the Act of 2,86,124/-. 17. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued by the Ld. DRP erred in proposing to levy interest under section 234B of the Act of Rs. 1,07,06,266/-. 18. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued

CONFERENCECALL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11 & 2012-13 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 529/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 584/Chny/2015 & 529/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2012-13 Conferencecall Services India Assistant Commissioner Of Private Ltd V. Income Tax, Rmz Titanium, No. 135, Corporate Circle -1(2), 1St Floor, Chennai – 34. Old Airport Road, Bangalore – 560 017. [Pan: Aaccc-6574-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Soumen Adak, Ca & Shri. Ashish Poddar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Soumen Adak, CA &For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C(3)

234A of the Act of 2,86,124/-. 17. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued by the Ld. DRP erred in proposing to levy interest under section 234B of the Act of Rs. 1,07,06,266/-. 18. That on the facts & circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO on direction issued

J RAY MCDERMOTT ENGINEERING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2016/CHNY/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

234A of the Act of INR 12,86,768 not appreciating the fact that the return of income was filed by the Appellant on or before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act. Further, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the said order. 11. That on the facts, and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI vs. ROHITKUMAR NEMCHAND PIPARIA, CHENNAI

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1344/CHNY/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1344/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito Shri Rohitkumar Nemchand Piparia बनाम International Taxation Ward-2(1) #34 (Old #77), Meddox Street, / Vs. Chennai. Choolai, Chennai-600 112. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Akzpp-0661-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. Samyuktha Banusekar (Advocates) - Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-10-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31-12-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar & Ms. SamyukthaFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

234A, 234B and 234C. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed charging of interest u/s 234B and 234C and stated that such interest is payable only if there was default in paying 'Advance Tax'. The definition and scope of 'Advance Tax' includes clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 209 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS), COIMBATORE vs. MAZDOOR WELFARE TRUST, TIRUVARUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 515/CHNY/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 515/Chny/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mazdoor Welfare Trust, Assistant Commissioner Of V. Kovilvenni S.O. , Income Tax (Exemptions), Krishnapuram, 2Nd Floor, Mayflowe Mideity Thiruvarur – 614 403. Building, 1510 Trichy Road, [Pan:Aaatm-0632-Q] Coimbatore – 641 018. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CITFor Respondent: Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(2)

Section 12A(b)? 2.3 The ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that accounts submitted by the assessee for the AY 2007-08 were not full and complete without inclusion of the accounts of 'Balamurugan Hostel/ Mess '? 2.4 Whether the ld.CIT(A) was right in overlooking the auditor’s report that “the accounts of Balamurugan Hostel/Mess have not been