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.

9 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi241 Mumbai162 Bangalore99 Kolkata58 Karnataka47 Raipur42 Jaipur30 Cochin28 Ahmedabad23 Chandigarh14 Jodhpur12 Indore12 Nagpur10 Lucknow10 Chennai9 Hyderabad8 Telangana7 Visakhapatnam7 Varanasi6 Agra5 Jabalpur5 Panaji5 Surat4 Pune3 Ranchi3 SC3 Dehradun3 Orissa2 Rajkot2 Kerala1 Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 271C18 Section 201(1)15 Section 4012 Section 2019 TDS8 Deduction7 Penalty6 Section 271(1)(c)5 Section 2714 Section 194A

SHREE BASAVESHWAR SUGARS LIMITED ,VIJAYAPURA ( BIJAPUR ) vs. ACIT , PANAJI-GOA

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

ITA 725/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273B

Section 271C of the Income Tax Act for nondeduction TDS and no penalty is envisaged under Section 271C for belated

3

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

ITA 2083/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

For Appellant: Ms. Veni Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate

Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 273

TDS Range initiated proceedings under section 271C of the Act by issuing show cause notice. Having not received any response

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. SELMA MEMOIRAL TRUST, THE NILGIRIS

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3378/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3378/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S Selma Memorial Trust, Income Tax, V. Prop: Riverside Public School, Tds Range, Coimbatore. San-Tri-Moo, P.B. No.34, Kotagiri, The Nilgiris – 643 217. Pan : Aadts 8376 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCITFor Respondent: Smt. Nithya Sankaran, CA

Section 192BSection 194Section 194ASection 194JSection 271C

TDS Range, Coimbatore, levied penalty of `10,70,242/- under Section 271C of 2 I.T.A. No.3378/Mds/16 the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short

TH 110 M/S. ARIGNAR ANNA PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1364/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri. N. Madhavan, JCIT

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271CSection 40

TDS, by a consolidated order u/s. 201(1)/201(1A) dated 27.12.2013 raised a demand of Rs. 22,092/- and Rs. 15,224/-, under these sections, respectively. It appears that he has sent a proposal for initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271C

TH 130 M/S BHARATHIYAR PWCS LTD.,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, SALEM

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 255/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.255/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Th 130 M/S Bharathiyar Pwcs Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, No.86A, East Colony, Komarapalayam, V. Tds Ward, Namakkal Dt. – 638 183. Salem. Pan : Aaaab 7285 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sriniranjani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

Section 271C of the Act. Since the assessee has not complied with mandatory requirement of TDS under Section 194C of the Act, according

GIRISH BHATTAD ,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 2280/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 30.11.2017

Section 194Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS were not deducted on this payment, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) 4 of the Act was made by the AO for `3,60,009/-. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3.1 Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee made written submissions and produced evidences for claim: The interest has been paid to the following

ITO WARD 3, VELLORE vs. AZIZ LEATHER EXPORTS, AMBUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 2102/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mrs.Meera Suresh, CAFor Respondent: 13.11.2017

Section 139Section 148Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

TDS as disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the assessee carried the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) placing reliance in the 3 judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd in 377 ITR 635(Del.), wherein observed that when the recipient filed

P.K.POWER APPLIANCES PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 5(3), CHENNAI

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

ITA 1582/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Respondent: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80

TDS provisions are not applicable. On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee has failed to submit these details before the AO, hence, declined to consider the submissions made by ld.A.R and dismissed the appeal. Against the order of Ld.CIT(A), now the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. Before us, ld.A.R submitted that second proviso to the section

TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD,VIRUDHUNAGAR vs. CIT (A)-2, MADURAI

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

ITA 605/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.605/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271C

TDS that tax due had been paid by the deductee-assessee. The Board has further clarified that non-enforcement of demand would not alter the liability :: 3 :: to change interest under section 201(1a) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or liability for the penalty under section 271C