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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 206C(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore240Pune235Delhi182Chennai154Mumbai62Kolkata46Raipur44Cochin28Ahmedabad26Karnataka26Jabalpur23Jaipur21Jodhpur20Nagpur20Rajkot18Indore14Surat12Panaji10Dehradun8Lucknow8Hyderabad6Himachal Pradesh6Chandigarh6Amritsar5Cuttack5Guwahati4Visakhapatnam3Telangana2Varanasi2SC1Rajasthan1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 234E7Section 272A(2)(k)6Section 201(1)6TDS6Section 200(3)5Section 2015Section 1544Section 206C3Section 272A3Penalty

KARTHIKEYA HOTELS,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1446/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Tribunal. Shri D. Veera Reddy, being the partner of the assessee and who looks after the affairs of the assessee, has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons that, the appeal relates to proceedings under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 was received by email on 27.02.2025. The partner of the assessee was not well and was having medical issues which required frequent visits to the hospitals and upon performing various procedures

Section 206CSection 206C(7)

TDS, Ward-1(4), PAN : HYDK07659B Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri M.V. Anil Kumar & Assessee Sreelekha, Advocates. Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik – Department Represented by CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 09.12.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 12.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

3
Addition to Income3
Survey u/s 133A3

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee company, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed

ITA 1236/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1236 & 1237/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2021-22 & 2022-23) Vivimed Labs Limited, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-3(4), Pan: Aaacv6060A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती "वारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "वारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of 05/01/2026 Hearing: घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 21/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

6. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) did not find favour with the explanation of the assessee company regarding the delay in filing the TDS statements. Vivimed Labs Limited vs. DCIT 7. Apropos the claim of the assessee company that the demands as contested were not tallying with the orders passed under section 154 r.w.s 200A by the CPC, Ghaziabad

VIVIMED LABS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1237/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: \nShri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: \nShri K. Vinoth Kannan
Section 154Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 250Section 311

206C(3) of the Act, therefore, as per the\nclear mandate of section 234E of the Act, it was liable to pay by way of fee, a\nsum of Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continued. The CIT(A)\nbased on his aforesaid observations, found no infirmity in the levy of fee under\nsection 234E

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1528/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

6. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also considered judicial precedents placed on record. In this case penalty has been levied u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act due to late filing of TDS statements/returns. However, it is an undisputed fact as admitted :- 8 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 by the parties herein

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1529/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

6. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also considered judicial precedents placed on record. In this case penalty has been levied u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act due to late filing of TDS statements/returns. However, it is an undisputed fact as admitted :- 8 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 by the parties herein

TELANGANA STATE MEDICAL SERVICES INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS, RANGE-3, VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all three appeals under consideration are allowed in above terms

ITA 1530/HYD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Section 133ASection 200(3)Section 272ASection 272A(2)(k)

6. We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. We have also considered judicial precedents placed on record. In this case penalty has been levied u/s. 272A(2)(k) of the Act due to late filing of TDS statements/returns. However, it is an undisputed fact as admitted :- 8 -: ITA Nos. 1528 to 1530Hyd/2016 by the parties herein