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.

28 results for “TDS”+ Section 27lclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi28Bangalore9Mumbai4Raipur2Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 275(1)(c)35Section 271D19Penalty18Section 271E16Section 143(3)15Deduction13Limitation/Time-bar12Section 19511Addition to Income11Section 269S10Section 20110Section 15410

MAX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1138/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Max Life Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Acit, Plot No.90A, Sector-18, Udyog Vihar, Circle-1, Ltu, Gurgaon, Haryana-122018. New Delhi. Pan-Aaccm3201E Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Himanshu Sinha, Adv. & Shri Bhuvan Dhoopar, Adv. Respondent By Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.10.2022 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. “That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Penalty Levied By The Ao Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Without Considering The Material Available On Record. 2. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Penalty Proceedings Are Separate & Distinct From Assessment Proceedings & Mere Disallowance Of A Claim Made By The Appellant Does Not Automatically Lead To Imposition Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C). 3. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Ao Has Failed To Appreciate That The Issue Involved In Appellant’S Case Is Purely A Legal Issue To Be Decided On Interpretation Of The Provisions Of The Act & Merely Because Ld. Ao Adopts A View

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

TDS of Rs.6,95,65,300/-; disallowance of share issue expenses of Rs.2,500/-. Thus, the AO assessed the total income of the assessee company at Rs.56,84,41,016/-. However, the AO allowed set off of business loss carried forward from AYs 2002-03 & 2003-04 to the extent of Rs.56,84,41,016/- thus, the total income

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, this appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1684/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing & All The Above Grounds Are Without Prejudice To Each Other.”

Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 27l

section 27l(l)(c) of the Act by furnishing inaccurate particulars of its income, for which penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act are being initiated separately. 4. With the above remarks, the total income/loss of the assessee company is recomputed as under: - Gross total loss as per Return of Income Rs. (50,39,439)/- Add: Disallowance

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2681/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2682/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2683/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2678/DEL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2680/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2679/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2674/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2675/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2676/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

M/S. MENTOR GRAPHICS (SALES & SERVICES) PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DDIT, NEW DELHI

Appeal of the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2677/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri N. K. Choudhry(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Ld. CIT DR
Section 154Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

section 9(1)(vi) of the Act) is extended under the distribution agreement. As per distribution agreement the Assessee has no right to alter, deface, remove, cover, mutilate, or add to, in any manner whatsoever, any patent notice, copyright notice, trademark, serial number, model number or brand name that MGI may attach or affix to products. The company

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 3446/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 272(2)(g)Section 272A(2)(g)Section 275(1)

27l(1)(b) for non-compliance of statutory notices, & 271 D for violating the provisions of Section 269 SS as discussed above." 12. The predecessor bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgments has held that where the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings in his/her assessment order, the said date is to be taken as the relevant date

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2922/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2923/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2924/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 04,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2925/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE-4,, NEW DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2926/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4,, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2919/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore

SANJEEV JAI NARAIN AEREN,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL RANGE-4, DELHI

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee arising out of penalty u/s 271D for AYs 2015-16 & 2018-19 are allowed

ITA 2921/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 271ESection 274(2)Section 275(1)(c)Section 27l

TDS) v. IKEA Trading Hong Kong Ltd., [2011] 333 ITR 565 (Del) to urge that it is the date of issuance of the Show Cause Notice ('SCN') that would be the relevant starting point. Accordingly he submits that the date of issuance of the SCN by the ACIT being 28 August, 2012, limitation would expire on 28 February, 2013. Therefore