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.

2,129 results for “TDS”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,129 Mumbai1,906 Bangalore695 Chennai549 Pune533 Kolkata368 Ahmedabad278 Hyderabad264 Jaipur244 Raipur209 Indore187 Karnataka151 Chandigarh142 Nagpur104 Visakhapatnam90 Surat79 Cochin76 Lucknow57 Rajkot53 Cuttack47 Dehradun42 Jabalpur40 Jodhpur37 Agra24 Guwahati24 Amritsar23 Panaji23 Patna16 Telangana15 SC13 Varanasi11 Ranchi8 Allahabad7 Calcutta3 Orissa2 Kerala2

Key Topics

Penalty61 TDS54 Deduction52 Section 271C48 Section 20144 Addition to Income43 Section 271(1)(c)42 Section 201(1)32 Section 143(3)31 Section 40

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1027/DEL/2020[2015-16 24Q, (Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

penalty of Rs. 100 per day is levied for delay in furnishing of TDS statement, however, no specific penalty is specified

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 2,129 · Page 1 of 107

...

28

ITA 1040/DEL/2020[2013-14 (26Q-Q-2)]Status: Disposed

ITAT Delhi

31 Aug 2022

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. M. Baranwal, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

penalty of Rs. 100 per day is levied for delay in furnishing of TDS statement, however, no specific penalty is specified

M/S. BONY POLYMERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, GURGAON

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

ITA 3273/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Before Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Taneja & Sh. Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. R.C. Dandey, Sr. DR

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS) imposed penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act since the appellant had not filed its TDS

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3367/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 194HSection 271CSection 273BSection 275

penalty order passed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range 50, New Delhi (“the TDS

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3368/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 194HSection 271CSection 273BSection 275

penalty order passed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range 50, New Delhi (“the TDS

IDEA CELLULAR LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3366/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 194HSection 271CSection 273BSection 275

penalty order passed u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the Additional Commissioner of Income, Range 50, New Delhi (“the TDS

ITO , TDS WARD-75(2), NEW DELHI vs. KUSHAL INFRA PROJECT INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8071/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Shri Naveen Chandraito, Tds Vs. M/S. Kushal Infra Project Ward – 75(2), Industries India Ltd. Aayakar Bhawn, Lakshmi 209, Uday Plaza, 16-A, Nagar, New Delhi -110 092 Uday Park, New Delhi-110 049 Pan : Aacck 3933 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dayainder Singh, Sidhu, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 17.01.2025 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar:

Section 143(3)Section 192(1)Section 2(14)Section 271CSection 271C(1)(a)Section 275(1)(c)Section 35D

Penalty of Rs.4,17,01,967/- was levied on the ground of TDS default on contractual payments. Penalty @10% was levied

M/S. GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL. CIT(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2713/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.D.R

Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271Section 271CSection 275

TDS at the interest u/s.201(1A), thereafter penalty proceedings u/s.271C was initiated. Ld. Assessing Officer thereafter in his impugned penalty

ITO, WARD- 76(1), NEW DELHI vs. TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6597/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshito Vs. Turner General Ward – 76(1) Entertainment Networks New Delhi India Pvt. Ltd., 5Th Floor, Radisson Commercial Plaza, National Highway-8, Mahipalpur – 26, Pan No. Aaccn 3434 E New Delhi- 110 037 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Manuj Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Shalini, Adv. Shri Sudip Loth, Adv. Revenue By Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit- D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.04.2024 Order Per M. Balaganesh: 1. This Appeal In Ita No.6597/Del/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arises Out Of The Order By Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 41, New Delhi In Appeal No. 289/16-17 Dated 16.08.2017 (Hereinafter Referred To As Ld Cit(A) In Short) Against The Penalty Order U/S 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred 2

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 275(1)(c)

TDS) - 04.08.2015 Date of Passing of Penalty Order u/s 271C of - 25.2.2016 the Act by JCIT (TDS) 4. As per provisions

VARDHMAN INFRA DEVELOPERS (P) LTD.,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-78(3), NEW DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 511/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.511/Del./2024, A.Y. 2014-15 Vardhman Infra Developers Income Tax Officer, (P) Ltd., 401-414, C-58, Ward-78(3), 4Th Floor, Shahpuri, Vs. Income Tax Office, Tirath Singh, Tower Dda, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan: Aadcv3838M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 30/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2014-15 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 201Section 203Section 272A(2)(g)Section 273Section 276BSection 279(2)

TDS in respect of various deductees and penalty was leviable on such defaults and the TDS certificates could not have

JAPYEE SPORTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee in case of both the assessee for all the three AYs are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue for both the assessee for all the three AYs are di...

ITA 4291/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Garg, Adv

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 271CSection 273B

TDS), Ghaziabad where the penalties levied by the ld Additional Commissioner of income tax ( TDS ) have been deleted by the order

ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, NOIDA

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee in case of both the assessee for all the three AYs are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue for both the assessee for all the three AYs are di...

ITA 4840/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Garg, Adv

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 271CSection 273B

TDS), Ghaziabad where the penalties levied by the ld Additional Commissioner of income tax ( TDS ) have been deleted by the order

ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD vs. THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, NOIDA

In the result all the appeals filed by the assessee in case of both the assessee for all the three AYs are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue for both the assessee for all the three AYs are di...

ITA 4837/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Garg, Adv

Section 133ASection 194ISection 201Section 271CSection 273B

TDS), Ghaziabad where the penalties levied by the ld Additional Commissioner of income tax ( TDS ) have been deleted by the order

M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT (LTU), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2035/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SR Senpati, Sr. DR

Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

TDS returns. 8. That the penalty levied is unjust, unlawful, and highly excessive. The penalty levied cannot be justified by any material

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 7252/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 271C

TDS and no penalty was exigible u/s 271C of the Act and as such penalty levied be directed to be deleted

VATIKA SOVEREIGN PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-26(1), NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 7251/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.7251 & 7252/Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vatika Sovereign Park Private Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 621A, 6Th Floor, Devika Towers Circle-26(1) 6-Nehru Place New Delhi New Delhi-110019 Pan No. Aafcp9383D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 271C

TDS and no penalty was exigible u/s 271C of the Act and as such penalty levied be directed to be deleted

M/S LUXMI RICE MILLS,KURUKSHETRA vs. JCIT (TDS), KARNAL

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2215/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N.K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2215/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Gurmeet Singh, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

Section 272Section 272A(2)(K)Section 273B

penalty for late filing of TDS returns. Accordingly we delete penalty levied, and grounds raised by assessee stands allowed. 10. In the result

M/S. NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,NOIDA vs. ACIT, NOIDA

In the result appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3295/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Ms. Raj Rani Lakra, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

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

penalty proceedings under section 271C of the Act. Various submissions and arguments were recorded by Ld. ACIT (TDS). It was submitted

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

ITA 2275/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Agarwal, Adv

Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 272A(2)(k)Section 275

penalty order passed on 16.03.2010 by the Addll. CIT (TDS) levying penalty of Rs. 898200/- , Rs. 299400/- and Rs. 190500/- for AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 u/s 272A

M/S MODIPON LTD.,,MODINAGAR vs. ADDL. (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result the ground No

ITA 2276/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Agarwal, Adv

Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 272A(2)(k)Section 275

penalty order passed on 16.03.2010 by the Addll. CIT (TDS) levying penalty of Rs. 898200/- , Rs. 299400/- and Rs. 190500/- for AY 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 u/s 272A