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.

107 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 115clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi453Mumbai356Indore134Karnataka120Bangalore111Chennai107Jaipur104Surat93Ahmedabad81Kolkata58Hyderabad42Raipur40Chandigarh34Calcutta34Pune24Allahabad20Rajkot19Nagpur16Lucknow15Visakhapatnam14Agra10Amritsar10Dehradun10Guwahati10Cuttack8Panaji7Cochin6Jabalpur5Rajasthan2Telangana2Jodhpur2

Key Topics

Section 234E237Section 200A78TDS53Section 200(3)35Section 271A35Addition to Income27Section 206C(3)25Section 13222Section 153A

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 114/CHNY/2017[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

115, 116, 117, 118 & 119/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Educational of Income Tax, Vs. Trust, Central Circle 2(1) No.61, Old No. 641, Investigation Wing, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai 600 034. K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L

Showing 1–20 of 107 · Page 1 of 6

22
Charitable Trust20
Penalty20
Section 271(1)(c)18

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 120/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

115, 116, 117, 118 & 119/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Educational of Income Tax, Vs. Trust, Central Circle 2(1) No.61, Old No. 641, Investigation Wing, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai 600 034. K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 113/CHNY/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

115, 116, 117, 118 & 119/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Educational of Income Tax, Vs. Trust, Central Circle 2(1) No.61, Old No. 641, Investigation Wing, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai 600 034. K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI MUTHUKUMARAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 115/CHNY/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

115, 116, 117, 118 & 119/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Educational of Income Tax, Vs. Trust, Central Circle 2(1) No.61, Old No. 641, Investigation Wing, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai 600 034. K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL TRUST, CHENNAI

In the result, we set aside the orders of the ld

ITA 126/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Mrs. Ilavarasi, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri. S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 11(5)Section 115BSection 12ASection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

115, 116, 117, 118 & 119/Mds/ 2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment years : 2003-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09 & 2009-2010. The Assistant Commissioner M/s. Sri Muthukumaran Educational of Income Tax, Vs. Trust, Central Circle 2(1) No.61, Old No. 641, Investigation Wing, Ramasamy Salai, Chennai 600 034. K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078. [PAN AABTS 6980L

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

u/s 271C, in so far as these defaults are concerned, is not called for and delete portion of the penalty pertaining to these defaults. Accordingly, this ground is allowed.” 5.1 The substance of the issue is whether the assessee is in default and liable for penal proceedings. Admittedly, the assessee has not deducted TDS on the expenditures as detailed hereinabove

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 257/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 255/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 252/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 250/CHNY/2022[2014-15 (26Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 248/CHNY/2022[214-15(244Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 258/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 254/CHNY/2022[2015-16(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTUIONS COMPANY P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 245/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 253/CHNY/2022[2015-16 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD112, KALIAMMAN KOIL STREET, NATESA NAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 247/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 249/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S. SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 246/CHNY/2022[2014-15(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 251/CHNY/2022[2014-15 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 256/CHNY/2022[2015-16(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 May 2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj (C.A)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section