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.

240 results for “TDS”+ Section 271C(1)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi240Mumbai162Bangalore99Kolkata58Karnataka47Raipur42Jaipur31Cochin28Ahmedabad23Indore15Chandigarh14Jodhpur12Nagpur11Lucknow10Chennai9Hyderabad8Telangana7Visakhapatnam7Surat6Agra5Jabalpur5Panaji5Pune3Ranchi3SC3Dehradun3Orissa2Rajkot2Varanasi1Kerala1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 271C198TDS86Section 201(1)82Section 194C79Penalty68Deduction61Section 20158Section 4042Survey u/s 133A33Section 133A

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 685/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS in such circumstances. 18. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A has correctly deleted the demand raised under section 201 (1) and interest under section 201 (1A) of The Income Tax Act and consequent penalty under section 271C

Showing 1–20 of 240 · Page 1 of 12

...
30
Addition to Income30
Section 15428

DCIT, LUCKNOW vs. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORP. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

In the result both the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed and COs of the assessee are allowed

ITA 686/LKW/2000[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2020AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri J. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143Section 194Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS in such circumstances. 18. He therefore submitted that the learned CIT – A has correctly deleted the demand raised under section 201 (1) and interest under section 201 (1A) of The Income Tax Act and consequent penalty under section 271C

NOKIA INDIA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-6, , NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7244/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 7244/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl. Cit, 807, New Delhi House, Special Range-6, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccn9141L Assessee By : Sh. Nageshwar Rao, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Surenderpal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.10.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Nageshwar Rao, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Surenderpal, CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 194JSection 40Section 9(1)(vii)

TDS result in delay of payments to the exchequer of the state, initiation of penalty provision u/s 271C and intervention in recovery provisions u/s 201(1). The Assessing Officer has to look into 22 Nokia India Sales Pvt. Ltd. these provisions jointly and severally as to whether there was a default in recovery, whether there was a delay in recovery

HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with

ITA/194/2004HC Delhi01 Aug 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 271

271C read with Section 273B of the Act that there was reasonable cause for the failure to deduct TDS under Section 194-I of the Act?” Submissions of counsel 31. Mr. Vohra submitted that the issue whether the TDS had to be deducted from the warehouse charges under Section 194-C or Section

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2289/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 192(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C

M/S. SPICE MOBILITY LIMITED,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2286/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 192(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2288/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 192(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C

M/S SPICE MOBILITY LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2287/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Ms Suchitra Kamblespice Mobility Ltd. Vs Addl. Cit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant) Spice Mobility Ltd. Vs Acit(Tds) 19A & 19B, Floor No. 5 Noida Global Knowledge Park, Sector-125 Noida Aabcm5619D (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 192(1)Section 194CSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

TDS under section 201(1 A) of the Act, in respect of provision made for commission to directors. 1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the order passed under section 271C

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

section 271(1)(C) was issued at 12.12.2019 at 04.56 P.M. i.e. after the closing of assessment proceedings. The AO has not issued any notice to the assessee u/s, 271C of the I.T. Act. 1961 during the pendency of the assessment proceedings. The show cause notice was issued only after the therefore, hence the penalty in dispute

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CIRCLE 76(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the scheme of demerger approved by Hon'ble National Company law Tribunal (NCLT) wherein the Indian hotel business was demerged from the Appellant to another entity. 2.1 That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts

ORAVEL STAYS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ORAVEL STAYS PRIVATE LIMITED),GURUGRAM vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 6, NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the scheme of demerger approved by Hon'ble National Company law Tribunal (NCLT) wherein the Indian hotel business was demerged from the Appellant to another entity. 2.1 That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts

SUMITA SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-17(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 577/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the scheme of demerger approved by Hon'ble National Company law Tribunal (NCLT) wherein the Indian hotel business was demerged from the Appellant to another entity. 2.1 That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts

R V INTERIOR PVT. LTD. ,DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed as above

ITA 452/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 194Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40

1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 ('the Act"). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in disregarding the scheme of demerger approved by Hon'ble National Company law Tribunal (NCLT) wherein the Indian hotel business was demerged from the Appellant to another entity. 2.1 That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts

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 at Rs. 1

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 at Rs. 1

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3383/DEL/2018[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was argued that all the payments have been made to non-resident outside India having no PE in India. 2.4. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. He perused a sample agreement which reproduced in the assessment and which

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3377/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was argued that all the payments have been made to non-resident outside India having no PE in India. 2.4. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. He perused a sample agreement which reproduced in the assessment and which

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3378/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was argued that all the payments have been made to non-resident outside India having no PE in India. 2.4. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. He perused a sample agreement which reproduced in the assessment and which

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3380/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was argued that all the payments have been made to non-resident outside India having no PE in India. 2.4. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. He perused a sample agreement which reproduced in the assessment and which

SHARDA EDUCATIONAL TRUST ,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO (TDS), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NOIDA

In the result, ITA.No.3377/Del

ITA 3379/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Anupma Anand, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 133ASection 195Section 201(1)

TDS as per the provisions of Section 195 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was argued that all the payments have been made to non-resident outside India having no PE in India. 2.4. However, the A.O. was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee. He perused a sample agreement which reproduced in the assessment and which