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.

99 results for “TDS”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi99Bangalore77Mumbai69Karnataka45Nagpur21Ahmedabad15Kolkata14Lucknow12Jaipur10Agra9Hyderabad9Indore9Surat9Cochin8Pune7Chandigarh7Panaji6Chennai5Jodhpur4Amritsar4Telangana4Ranchi3SC2Kerala1Varanasi1Orissa1Visakhapatnam1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 271C157TDS81Section 20173Penalty68Section 194C65Deduction53Section 273B40Section 201(1)40Section 272A(2)(k)35Survey u/s 133A

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

TDS under Section 194-I of the Act. Accordingly, the question framed by this Court by its order dated 5th September 2005 is re-framed as under: “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant has been able to show, for the purposes of Section 271C read with Section 273B

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 99 · Page 1 of 5

33
Section 194H27
Section 133A26
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

273B so that no penalty shall be levied if the deductor proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure. Consequential amendment is also proposed in section 272A to provide that no penalty under this section shall be levied for late filing of TDS

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

273B so that no penalty shall be levied if the deductor proves that there was a reasonable cause for the failure. Consequential amendment is also proposed in section 272A to provide that no penalty under this section shall be levied for late filing of 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

TDS and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty can be levied. d) Without Prejudice, if the mechanism

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

TDS and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty can be levied. d) Without Prejudice, if the mechanism

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

TDS and in view of section 273B of the Act, no penalty can be levied. d) Without Prejudice, if the mechanism

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 Ward-2, Lucknow was defined as below:- The Assessing Officer shall have jurisdiction for the purpose of Chapter XVIIB (Except sections 198, 199) and section 272BB & 273B

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 Ward-2, Lucknow was defined as below:- The Assessing Officer shall have jurisdiction for the purpose of Chapter XVIIB (Except sections 198, 199) and section 272BB & 273B

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

TDS has been deducted by assessee under 194J instead of section 194C as held by assessing officer in order passed under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The penalty u/s 271C has been levied on entire amount paid by assessee to U.P Jal Nigam. In our considered view, levy of penalty under section 271C for failure

PARK LAND HOSPITALITY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT , RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6959/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 273B for filing TDS return belatedly. It may be noted that non filing of TDS return in time causes

PARK LAND HOSPITALITY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6960/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 273B for filing TDS return belatedly. It may be noted that non filing of TDS return in time causes

ACIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. TV 18 BROADCAST LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2208/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Sanjay Garg(Through Video Conferencing) Acit Vs. Tv 18 Broadcast Ltd., Circle – 76(1) 414,1St Floor, Empire New Delhi Complex, Lower Parel Mumbai, Murtijapur, Maharashtra – 110 001 Pan : Aaccg 3666 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, C.A. Revenue By Shri Jagdish Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.11.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 271CSection 40

TDS provisions. In view of above discussion, I am of the considered view that the appellant has given fair reason for non deduction of tax as the provision being not related to any specific payee. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the appellant had reasonable cause with the meaning of section 273B

DCIT CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. OMAXE LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue/Department stands

ITA 9282/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 194CSection 250Section 271C

Section 273B of the Act for not deducting the TDS; and whether the penalty can be levied when the conduct

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4942/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271Section 271C

TDS) vs M/s IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd in 179 Taxman 309 (Del), the Ld. AO has held that there is no time limit for initiation of penalty, and for imposition of penalty u/s 271C, order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is not necessary. Since there was no reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4941/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271Section 271C

TDS) vs M/s IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd in 179 Taxman 309 (Del), the Ld. AO has held that there is no time limit for initiation of penalty, and for imposition of penalty u/s 271C, order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is not necessary. Since there was no reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B

TS REALTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT RANGE -76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 4940/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No. 4940/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No. 4941/Del/2019, A.Y. 2015-16 Ita No. 4942/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18 T.S. Realtech Private Vs. Acit, Limited Range-76 E-26, Panchsheel Park New Delhi New Delhi – 110017 Pan : Aadck3222C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133ASection 194CSection 196Section 271Section 271C

TDS) vs M/s IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd in 179 Taxman 309 (Del), the Ld. AO has held that there is no time limit for initiation of penalty, and for imposition of penalty u/s 271C, order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is not necessary. Since there was no reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B

M/S. JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3846/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3846/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194ISection 271CSection 273B

273B, in violation of the fundamental and universal natural-jus rice principle of audi alteram partem. ITA Nos. 3846 to 3848/Del/2015 3 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the impugned penalty u/s 271C of the Act imposed on the appellant for alleged non deduction of tax at source

M/S. JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3848/DEL/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3846/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194ISection 271CSection 273B

273B, in violation of the fundamental and universal natural-jus rice principle of audi alteram partem. ITA Nos. 3846 to 3848/Del/2015 3 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the impugned penalty u/s 271C of the Act imposed on the appellant for alleged non deduction of tax at source

M/S. JAYPEE INFRATECH LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3847/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Kuldip Singh, Jm Ita No. 3846/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar Garg, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kaushlendra Tiwari, Sr. DR
Section 194Section 194ISection 271CSection 273B

273B, in violation of the fundamental and universal natural-jus rice principle of audi alteram partem. ITA Nos. 3846 to 3848/Del/2015 3 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the impugned penalty u/s 271C of the Act imposed on the appellant for alleged non deduction of tax at source

TULIP INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

The appeals are allowed

ITA 6735/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.6734/Del/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 Ita No.6735/Del/2019, A.Y. 2016-17 Ita No.6736/Del/2019, A.Y. 2017-18

Section 133ASection 194CSection 271C

TDS) vs M/s IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd. in 179 Taxman 309 (Del), the Ld. AO has held that there is no time limit for initiation of penalty, and for imposition of penalty u/s 271C, order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) is not necessary. Since there was no reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B