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.

10 results for “TDS”+ Section 272Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore30Karnataka21Mumbai19Delhi10Visakhapatnam6Panaji5Pune4Kolkata2Ahmedabad2Nagpur2Cochin1Raipur1Chennai1

Key Topics

Section 271G16Section 272B15Penalty10TDS8Section 139A6Section 271(1)(c)4Section 272A(2)(k)4Section 40A(2)(b)4Deduction4Section 148

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

2
Section 200(3)2
Disallowance2

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

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

ITO (TDS), ROHTAK vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JHAJJAR

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 6491/DEL/2013[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6491 To 6494/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Tds Vs The Executive Engineer, Rohtak Panchayati Raj, Jhajjar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Rtkpo1586E Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2015 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139ASection 272B

section 139A of the I.T. Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard.” 4. The only grievance of the department in these appeals relates to the deletion of the penalties levied by the AO u/s 272B Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Facts

ITO (TDS), ROHTAK vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS, SONEPAT

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 6488/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 6488/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer (Tds), Vs M/S L. T. Foods, Rohtak 43, K. M. Stone, G.T. Road, Bahalgarh, Distt. Sonepat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Rtklo00819A Assessee By : Sh. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 25.09.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak.

For Appellant: Sh. Sanat Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR
Section 139ASection 272B

TDS) vs. Superintendent of Police (supra) and we find that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court has held that penalty under section 272B

M/S. HARYANA DISTILLERY LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT, KARNAL

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1643/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS), Rohtak vs. Executive Engineer (2015) 69 SOT 421 (Del.-Tribu.) in which it was held as under : “No penalty was imposable under section 272B

M/S. HARYANA DISTILLERY LTD.,HARYANA vs. JCIT, KARNAL

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1642/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Sept 2018

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS), Rohtak vs. Executive Engineer (2015) 69 SOT 421 (Del.-Tribu.) in which it was held as under : “No penalty was imposable under section 272B

M/S. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ROHTAK vs. ITO(TDS), ROHTAK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3538/DEL/2014[1009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2017AY 1009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 272B

TDS), Provl. Divn. No.1, Rohtak. PWD B& R Rohtak, Opposite T.B. Hospital, Gohana Road, Rohtak. PAN No. RTKEO0693A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 10.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order dated

M/S. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,ROHTAK vs. ITO(TDS), ROHTAK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3542/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Amit Shukla, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 272B

TDS), Provl. Divn. No.1, Rohtak. PWD B& R Rohtak, Opposite T.B. Hospital, Gohana Road, Rohtak. PAN No. RTKEO0693A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 10.04.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the consolidated order dated

M/S. VEETEE FINE FOODS LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO (TDS), ROHTAK

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4941/DEL/2015[2010-11 (F.Y. 2009-10)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2020

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4941/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., Vs Ito(Tds) 56-57 Km Mile Stone, Rohtak. G. T. Karnal Road, Larsauli, Sonepat -131 001 (Pan : Aaacp 0658 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Saroj Agarwal, C.A. Ms. Sonia Rani, C.A. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R.

Section 139ASection 200Section 27Section 272Section 272B

Section 139A requires that valid PAN of all persons on behalf of whom tax is deducted, should be quoted in the quarterly statement. The Assessing Officer (ITO TDS) held that this is a fit case for imposition of penalty u/s 272B