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(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Bangalore239Pune205Delhi182Chennai152Mumbai60Kolkata46Raipur44Ahmedabad26Cochin26Karnataka26Jabalpur23Jodhpur20Jaipur19Rajkot18Nagpur15Indore13Surat12Panaji10Dehradun8Lucknow8Hyderabad6Himachal Pradesh6Cuttack6Chandigarh6Amritsar5Guwahati4Visakhapatnam3Telangana2Varanasi2Calcutta1SC1Rajasthan1

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)

Section 206C(7) of the Act, and the A.O. shall reconsider the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 9 Karthikeya Hotels 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12th December, 2025. श्री विजय पाल राि (मंजूनाथ जी) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (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

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 for the various quarters, the CIT(A) issued a notice, dated 08/05/2025, wherein the assessee company was called upon to file a breakup of the disputed demand which was duly placed

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

7,340 3,080\n27EQ\n1\n30.06.2022 154\n30.06.2022 566\n35\n27EQ\n2\n15.11.2021\n200A/206CB 20.11.2021 573.75\n27EQ\n3\n15.11.2021\n200A/206CB 20.11.2021 60,800 4,667\n27EQ\n4\n13.01.2022\n154\n13:01.2022 36,800 1,886 772\n2,41,340 17,868 12,032\n3.\nApart from that, the ITO (TDS), CPC had also raised demands of\nRs.13

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)

7. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to file TDS quarterly returns within the prescribed time in form Nos. 24Q and 26Q for deduction of tax at source for the FY 2008-09 and, therefore, the revenue authorities have rightly levied the penalty 272A(2)(k). 8. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material

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)

7. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to file TDS quarterly returns within the prescribed time in form Nos. 24Q and 26Q for deduction of tax at source for the FY 2008-09 and, therefore, the revenue authorities have rightly levied the penalty 272A(2)(k). 8. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material

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)

7. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to file TDS quarterly returns within the prescribed time in form Nos. 24Q and 26Q for deduction of tax at source for the FY 2008-09 and, therefore, the revenue authorities have rightly levied the penalty 272A(2)(k). 8. After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material