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.

741 results for “TDS”+ Section 32clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,143Mumbai2,138Bangalore1,126Chennai741Kolkata466Hyderabad462Ahmedabad452Pune322Indore256Chandigarh240Jaipur226Cochin219Karnataka185Raipur169Surat108Visakhapatnam106Cuttack86Rajkot79Nagpur67Jabalpur56Lucknow55Ranchi47Dehradun35Amritsar27Guwahati25Agra24Patna20Jodhpur19Allahabad18Telangana16SC12Kerala9Panaji8Varanasi6Calcutta4Uttarakhand2Rajasthan2Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 4078TDS54Disallowance53Section 143(3)48Section 234E48Addition to Income46Section 19543Deduction42Section 200A38Section 14A

ALFHA COACH BUILDERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

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

ITA 33/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

32 & 33/Chny/2025 Rujula International v. PCIT (2024)(167 taxmann.com 367) and True Blue Voice India (P) Ltd. v. CCIT (TDS)(2024)(158 taxmann.com 67) held that late fee cannot be imposed u/s 234E of the Act, while processing the application for TDS under section

Showing 1–20 of 741 · Page 1 of 38

...
26
Limitation/Time-bar24
Condonation of Delay23

ALFHA COACH BUILDERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

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

ITA 32/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

32 & 33/Chny/2025 Rujula International v. PCIT (2024)(167 taxmann.com 367) and True Blue Voice India (P) Ltd. v. CCIT (TDS)(2024)(158 taxmann.com 67) held that late fee cannot be imposed u/s 234E of the Act, while processing the application for TDS under section

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2013/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1740/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2012/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2014/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. SHRIRAM EPC LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2011/CHNY/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

SHRIRAM EPC LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1604/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy]

For Appellant: Shri. R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A. Sundararajan, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

Section 32 (1) shall be applicable as if the said structure or work is a building owned by the assessee. We thus answer the reference holding that the ratio of the judgment of the Division Bench in Joy Alukkas case as expressed in paragraph 28 of the judgment needs no reconsideration. 34. We further hold that whether an expenditure incurred

CLASSIC LINEN INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee in iTA

ITA 2406/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Ramit Kochar"नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Respondent: 16.09.2019
Section 100Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

section 32, the written down value of any asset used for the purposes of the business of the undertaking shall be computed as if the assessee had claimed and been actually allowed the deduction in respect of depreciation for each of the relevant assessment year. (7) The provisions of sub-section (8) and sub-section (10) of section

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2345/CHNY/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated and relied on by the following judicial precedents — • CIT v. Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. [2014] 228 taxman 359 (Gujarat High Court) • Arc Fine Chemicals

FORD INDIA (P) LTD,CHENNAI vs. DY CIT LTU, CHENNAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2344/CHNY/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.2344 & 2345/Mds/2012 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2008-09

For Respondent: 28.02.2017
Section 143(3)

section 32(2) as amended by Finance Act, 2001 and were available for carry forward and set off against the profits and gains of subsequent years, without any limit whatsoever. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated and relied on by the following judicial precedents — • CIT v. Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd. [2014] 228 taxman 359 (Gujarat High Court) • Arc Fine Chemicals

VNC STEEL DISTRIBUTORS,,KARUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 1937/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1937/Chny/2024 & Stay Petition No: 40/Chny/2024 [In Ita No: 1937/Chny/2024)] िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vnc Steel Distributors, Deputy Commissioner Of No.2, Industrial Estate, V. Income Tax, S. Vellalapatti, Circle -1(1), Karur – 639 004. Trichy. [Pan: Aadfv-9137-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Abhinov Vaidyanathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CIT
Section 194CSection 194HSection 2Section 250Section 253(1)Section 30Section 40

Section 40(a)(ia) is made on this amount (Rs.8,37,642) which is calculated at Rs.2,51,292.60 4.6.2 Non Deduction of TDS on Advertisement and Promotional on promotional schemes Dealers Expenditure - Incentive paid to (Rs.10,13,32

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1254/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI vs. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1376/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1355/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

SUNDARAM CLAYTON LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue and the assessee

ITA 1356/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

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

For Respondent: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan
Section 14ASection 251(1)(a)Section 260ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 35

32(1)(iia) of the Act where the asset is acquired and put to use by the assessee for the purpose of business for a period of less one hundred and eighty days in that previous year deduction under this subsection shall be restricted to fifty per cent of such asset. 3.8) The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated

AVINASH KISHORE HEMDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2430/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2421, 2422, 2423; 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427; 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431 & 2432/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1] Avinash Kishore Hemdev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, 1St Street, Haddows Road, Tds Ward 1(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aamph1666B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Bunch Of 12 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1].

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for the delay in filing the said statements for the assessment years under consideration. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E

AVINASH KISHORE HEMDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2431/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2421, 2422, 2423; 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427; 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431 & 2432/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1] Avinash Kishore Hemdev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, 1St Street, Haddows Road, Tds Ward 1(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aamph1666B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Bunch Of 12 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1].

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for the delay in filing the said statements for the assessment years under consideration. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E

AVINASH KISHORE HEMDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2425/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2421, 2422, 2423; 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427; 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431 & 2432/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1] Avinash Kishore Hemdev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, 1St Street, Haddows Road, Tds Ward 1(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aamph1666B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Bunch Of 12 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1].

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for the delay in filing the said statements for the assessment years under consideration. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E

AVINASH KISHORE HEMDEV,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1(3), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2423/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2421, 2422, 2423; 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427; 2428, 2429, 2430, 2431 & 2432/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1] Avinash Kishore Hemdev, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, 1St Street, Haddows Road, Tds Ward 1(3), Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai. [Pan:Aamph1666B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Bunch Of 12 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 04.06.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 [Q4, Q-3 & Q-2], 2014-15 [Q1, Q-3, Q-2 & Q-4], 2015-16 [Q-1, Q-2, Q-3 & Q-4] & 2016-17 [Q-1].

For Appellant: Ms. N.V. Lakshmi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. M. Subashri, Addl. CIT (Virtual)
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS quarterly returns filed by the assessee under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] and levied late filing fee under section 234E of the Act for the delay in filing the said statements for the assessment years under consideration. The assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fee under section 234E