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.

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Gclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore30Karnataka21Mumbai20Indore9Chennai7Delhi5Panaji5Kolkata2Dehradun2Visakhapatnam1SC1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 271G16Section 1485Section 271(1)(c)4Section 40A(2)(b)4Section 92C3Penalty3Disallowance3Section 144C2Section 92D2Section 928B

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

271G deserves to be deleted, because the turn over limit stands from Rs. 5 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores, and also because the provision of section 40A(2)(b) stands omitted from section 928BA (meaning of specified domestic transaction.” Estimation of Profit/Section 40A(2)(b): 4. Brief background of the case is as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products

2
Deduction2
Addition to Income2

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

271G deserves to be deleted, because the turn over limit stands from Rs. 5 Crores to Rs. 20 Crores, and also because the provision of section 40A(2)(b) stands omitted from section 928BA (meaning of specified domestic transaction.” Estimation of Profit/Section 40A(2)(b): 4. Brief background of the case is as under: The assessee M/s TAPI Prestressed Products

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

M/S. GL LITMUS EVENTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2502/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K. N. Charygl Litmus Events Pvt. Ltd, The Assistant Commissioner Vs. B-90, Second Floor, Of Income Tax Vishwakarma Colony, New Delhi Central Circle-7, New Delhi Pan: Aadcg6909N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay I Bara, CIT DR
Section 143Section 144CSection 153ASection 292CSection 37Section 69Section 92C

271G of the Act.” 2. The brief facts of the case are related to XIX addition of Commonwealth games held in New Delhi from 3/10/2010 to 14/10/2010. The organization and conduct of this mega event was controlled and supervised by The Commonwealth Games Organizing Committee (OC, CWT) specifically formed and authorised to deal with the various aspects relating

KEANE INDIA LTD.,GURGAON vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5880/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year : 2002-03 Keane India Ltd., Dcit, Circle- 5(1), Unitech Trade Centre, New Delhi. Sector- 43, Sushant Lok, Vs. Gurgaon.

For Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 151(2)Section 92C

section 92C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’). 4.10 The Ld. AO erred in rejecting use of multiple year data for benchmarking purposes. 4.11 The Ld. AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271G of the Act for delayed submission of prescribed documentation per rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1992. The grounds of appeal