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.

3 results for “TDS”+ Section 200(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi896Mumbai808Bangalore782Patna476Pune464Chennai400Hyderabad151Kolkata137Jaipur116Raipur106Ahmedabad95Nagpur82Cochin69Indore61Chandigarh55Lucknow37Agra32Karnataka30Rajkot27Dehradun25Visakhapatnam18Ranchi18Amritsar15Panaji14Jodhpur13Surat13Guwahati9SC5Allahabad3Cuttack3Jabalpur3Orissa1Telangana1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 234E22Section 200A10Section 1274Section 143(2)3Section 200(3)2TDS2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK vs. MAA TARINI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, BARBIL KOENJHAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 454/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.454 & 455/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (Tds), Income Tax Officer (Tds), Vs. Maa Tarini Transport Pvt Maa Tarini Transport Pvt Cuttack Ltd., Ltd., Bhadrasahi, Bhadrasahi, Barbil, Barbil, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No.Aafcm 0416 L No.Aafcm 0416 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench These Two These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.9.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10412/2018 Cit(A),Cuttack/10412/2018-19 & Cit(A),Cuttack/10413/2018 19 & Cit(A),Cuttack/10413/2018-19 For The Assessment Year Essment Year 2014-15 Deleting The Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Of The Act. Deleting The Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

200(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has every authority to levy fee either by a separate order or while processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act. Ld Sr DR produced a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), CUTTACK vs. MAA TARINI TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED, BARBIL, KEONJHAR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 455/CTK/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalita Nos.454 & 455/Ctk/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer (Tds), Income Tax Officer (Tds), Vs. Maa Tarini Transport Pvt Maa Tarini Transport Pvt Cuttack Ltd., Ltd., Bhadrasahi, Bhadrasahi, Barbil, Barbil, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No.Aafcm 0416 L No.Aafcm 0416 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench These Two These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.9.2024 In Appeal No.Cit(A),Cuttack/10412/2018 Cit(A),Cuttack/10412/2018-19 & Cit(A),Cuttack/10413/2018 19 & Cit(A),Cuttack/10413/2018-19 For The Assessment Year Essment Year 2014-15 Deleting The Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Of The Act. Deleting The Levy Of Fees U/S.234E Of The Act.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234E

200(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has every authority to levy fee either by a separate order or while processing the statement under Section 200A of the Act. Ld Sr DR produced a decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rajesh Kourani vs Union of India (2017) 83 taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein

M/S. MAA TARANI LOGISTICS LTD,JODA vs. ACIT CIR.-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 140/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Maa Tarani Logistics M/S Maa Tarani Logistics Vs. Acit, Circle Acit, Circle-1(1), Ltd., Ltd., Unchabali, Unchabali, Po: Po: Cuttack Bamabri, Bamabri, Via Via- Joda, Keonjhar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aaecm 7549 R (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By Assessee By : S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), , Nfac, Nfac, Delhi, Dated 27.3.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051397448(1) For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. S/Shri Shri Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Soumitra Choudhury & Jaydeep Chakraborty, Advocates Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Assessee & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld. Pr.Cit (Osd) Appeared For The Reve Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: S/Shri Soumitra Choudhury & JaydeepFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 1aSection 234Section 68

3 | 20 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Act had been issued by the ITO, Keonjhar Ward on 30.8.2013. Ld AR drew our attention to page 529 of PB, which was a copy of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. It was the submission that the notice issued u/s.143(2) by the Income Tax Officer, Keonjhar Ward was invalid insofar