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.

25 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai67Chennai43Bangalore35Delhi25Karnataka21Kolkata10Indore9Visakhapatnam6Rajkot6Panaji5Jaipur5Pune3Patna3Nagpur2Ahmedabad2Hyderabad2Raipur1Surat1SC1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income20TDS18Section 201(1)17Section 20116Section 271G16Limitation/Time-bar16Section 272A(2)(k)13Section 271A(2)(k)13Section 19413Section 271A

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)

section 271A(2)(g) of the IT Act, 1961 is imposed relevant to the F.Y. 2013-14 in the case of the assessee company.” 3.3 Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), who restricted the penalty to Rs.90,57,620/- from Rs.1,02,48,566/- as under: - “6. I have considered the facts of the case, basis

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

10
Section 44A7
Penalty7

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2318/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS return has been filed by all three Income sources after deducting the applicable Tax and issuing the certificates for the same to the Assessee. Assesse filed the return as soon as received the notice for filing the same, paid the balance tax liability as assessed by the department, paid further the Interest on delayed payment of Income

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4873/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

TDS 5188 Sundry Balances written off 70 Net Profit 170416 The assessee JV had filed its ITR declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,600/- (Rs. 1,70,416/- plus Rs.5,188/- being the amount disallowable). The AO had passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income

TAPI JWIL JV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-62(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6722/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6722/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 4873/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Tapi Jwil Jv, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O C. S. Anand, Adv., Ward-62(4), 104, Pankaj Tower, 10, L.S.C. New Delhi Savita Vihar, Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadat3744J Assessee By : Sh. C. S. Anand, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.10.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amitabh K. Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 271GSection 40A(2)(b)Section 928BSection 92D

TDS 5188 Sundry Balances written off 70 Net Profit 170416 The assessee JV had filed its ITR declaring total income of Rs. 1,75,600/- (Rs. 1,70,416/- plus Rs.5,188/- being the amount disallowable). The AO had passed the assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) in the status of AOP, determining the total income

DHANKOT FILLING STATION ,GURGAON vs. PR.CIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1030/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri M. Balaganeshdhankot Filling Station, Vs. Pr. Cit, Sultanpur Road, Village Faridabad Dhankot, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122505 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaefd7291A Assessee By : Sh. Sandeep Kumar, Ca Revenue By: Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/04/2023

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. James Singson, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 270ASection 271ASection 275Section 69A

TDS and was not allowable; ii) Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act had not been initiated; and iii) Penalty under Section 271A

LEGEND SURFACE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 2363/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanlegend Surface Developers Private Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 75 (2), 127-A, Central Avenue, New Delhi. Sainik Farms, New Delhi – 110 062. (Pan : Aabcl3143M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Vijay B Vasanta, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.09.2024 Date Of Order : 04.10.2024 Order Per S.Rifaur Rahman, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B Vasanta, CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 195Section 201Section 201(1)

section 195 of the Act. 6.5.7 Therefore, I am of the considered view that the appellant was liable to deposit the TDS amount in Govt. account and the AO had rightly raised the demand u/s 201 (1)/201(lA). This ground raised by the appellant is rejected. 6.6 Ground 2; 3 and 4:- 6.6.1 The grounds

YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GREATER NOIDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- APPEAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2488/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 2Section 22Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.11.2017 for Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a Local Authority and constituted in terms of section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. vs. CIT(A) assessee is granted registration u/s 12AA

YAMUNA EXPRESSWAY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,GREATER NOIDA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- APPEAL, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2489/DEL/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalyamuna Expressway Cit(Appeal), Industrial Development Ghaziabad. Authority, Greator Noida, Vs. First Floor, Commercial Complex, Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201308. Pan-Aaalt0341D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(46)Section 12ASection 147(3)Section 148Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act, 1976. The assessee is granted registration u/s 12AA of the Act in terms of the order of ld. 2 Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority. vs. CIT(A) CIT(E), Lucknow dated 08.05.2017 as a charitable institution carrying out activity of General Public Utility. The assessee was also notified as an authority

ADIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AIR FRANCE, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 143Section 144C

TDS too. Similarly, amount received from Austrian Airlines and others are subjected to Service Tax. The agreement with Singapore Airlines has inbuilt “Termination Clause” as well as provision for “Annual Pricing Review”. The agreement with Singapore Airlines & Austrian Airlines also provides for the sub-contract of the services to KLM. However, while the assessee charges US Dollar 625 & Euro

AIR FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. ADIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1786/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2006-07

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

Section 143Section 144C

TDS too. Similarly, amount received from Austrian Airlines and others are subjected to Service Tax. The agreement with Singapore Airlines has inbuilt “Termination Clause” as well as provision for “Annual Pricing Review”. The agreement with Singapore Airlines & Austrian Airlines also provides for the sub-contract of the services to KLM. However, while the assessee charges US Dollar 625 & Euro

AIR FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 5009/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2005-06

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

Section 143Section 144C

TDS too. Similarly, amount received from Austrian Airlines and others are subjected to Service Tax. The agreement with Singapore Airlines has inbuilt “Termination Clause” as well as provision for “Annual Pricing Review”. The agreement with Singapore Airlines & Austrian Airlines also provides for the sub-contract of the services to KLM. However, while the assessee charges US Dollar 625 & Euro

AIR FRANCE,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 5008/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2020AY 2004-05

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

Section 143Section 144C

TDS too. Similarly, amount received from Austrian Airlines and others are subjected to Service Tax. The agreement with Singapore Airlines has inbuilt “Termination Clause” as well as provision for “Annual Pricing Review”. The agreement with Singapore Airlines & Austrian Airlines also provides for the sub-contract of the services to KLM. However, while the assessee charges US Dollar 625 & Euro

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 522/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 523/DEL/2015[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 525/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 526/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 527/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 528/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 529/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. NORTHERN INDIA TRANSPORT CO,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 530/DEL/2015[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT DR
Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271A(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

271A(2)(k), 272A(2)(g) and 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that the quantum additions on the basis of which these penalties were levied by the AO had already been deleted by this bench