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.

8 results for “TDS”+ Section 271Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi241Mumbai162Bangalore99Kolkata58Karnataka47Raipur42Jaipur30Cochin28Ahmedabad23Chandigarh14Jodhpur12Indore12Nagpur10Lucknow10Chennai9Hyderabad8Telangana7Visakhapatnam7Varanasi6Surat6Agra5Jabalpur5Panaji5Pune3Dehradun3Ranchi3SC3Orissa2Rajkot2Kerala1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 27512Section 271C11Section 2538Section 2468Section 271B7Penalty6TDS6Section 201(1)4Section 275(1)(a)4Section 246A

ASWARTHANARAYANA VENKATA RENIGUNTLA,DHARMAVARAM vs. ITO, WARD-1, ANANTAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 143/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Aswarthanarayana Venkata Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Anantapur. Reniguntla, Dharmavaram, Andhra Pradesh. Pan : Alrpr5400R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca Revenue By: Sri A. Sitarama Rao. Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2023

For Appellant: Sri M. ChandramouleswaraFor Respondent: Sri A. Sitarama Rao
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270ASection 271Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

TDS would be under Section 201(1A) and Section 276B of the Act, 1961. 13. Respectfully, following the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the identical facts of the case cited supra though in the context of section 271C

4
Limitation/Time-bar4

CYBERMATE INFOTEK LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2256/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2013-14 Cybermate Infotek Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 1(4), Hyderabad. Pan – Aabcc 4776F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai Date Of Hearing: 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/09/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Y.V.S.T. Sai
Section 143(3)Section 37

TDS from the payment made towards legal and professional fee. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P.) Ltd [2015] 61 taxmann.com 45 (Delhi), has considered the applicability of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and held that the second proviso to section

SRI AVANTIKA CONTRACTORS(I) LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-15(1), HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 61/HYD/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara(Through Video Conference) Sri Avantika Contractors Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income (I) Limited, Tax, Circle 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan Aajcs 5046C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Gowtham (D.R.)
Section 194ISection 271C

Section 271C of Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 2. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities’ have erred in law and on facts in imposing 271C penalty of Rs.9,99,606; we note that the same pertains to its failure in not deducting/remitting TDS

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS) , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD vs. INVESCO (HYDERABAD)PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn in above terms

ITA 1144/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Vs. M/S. Invesco (Hyderabad) Of Income Tax, Private Limited, Tds Circle – 1(1), 14Th & 15Th Floor, Block Hyderabad. – 6, North Tower, Divyasree Orion Sez, Raidurgam, Serlingampally Mandal, R.R. District, Hyderabad. Pan : Aacci1644M. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri T. Sunil Goutam Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.11.2021 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, J.M. This Revenue’S Appeal For A.Y 2013-14 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 8, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 23.03.2018, In Case No.10081/Cit(A)-8/Hyd/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 271C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. Sunil Goutam
Section 271C

section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). 1 Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. We accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. At the outset, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue does not want to pursue the appeal as the assessee has already filed forms I & II under the ‘Direct

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 66/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

section 201(1) and 201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 63/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

section 201(1) and 201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 64/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

section 201(1) and 201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C

AMD RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CENTER INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED(NOW KNOWN AS AMD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 65/HYD/2018[20009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2022

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Sri H. Srinivasulu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri T. Sunil Goutam,DR
Section 201(1)Section 246Section 246ASection 253Section 271CSection 275Section 275(1)(a)

section 201(1) and 201(1A); and that it ought to have deducted TDS on the payments in question involving a canadian group entity as well as the ultimate recipient M/s. Soctronics India (P) Ltd. 4. Next come the impugned 271C