Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

15 results for “TDS”+ Section 234E(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune638 Chennai495 Patna466 Bangalore388 Delhi311 Mumbai136 Cochin84 Nagpur62 Visakhapatnam47 Kolkata30 Hyderabad30 Raipur25 Dehradun21 Jaipur15 Indore14 Cuttack13 Lucknow13 Panaji11 Amritsar11 Ahmedabad6 Rajkot6 Surat6 Chandigarh5 Agra5 Jodhpur3 Ranchi2 Guwahati2 Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E27 Section 200A18 TDS14 Section 12A12 Section 1110 Condonation of Delay9 Section 404 Section 194C(7)4 Section 2344 Section 1

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1171/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Gupta (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(2)Section 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40

TDS statement shall invite 2 penal consequence 1. Fee for late filing U/s 234E: As per section 234E, where a person

SPECIAL JUDGE COURT SC/ST,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER

3

Addition to Income2

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1086/JPR/2019[2014-15 (1ST QTR.)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jan 2021

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya (ITP)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary

Section 1Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

234E can be made under clause (c) of Sub-section 1 of Section 200A. As the TDS return of the appellant

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1506/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1511/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT NITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1510/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1509/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1508/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1507/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1513/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1512/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. Sunil Porwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 200ASection 234E

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

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

ITA 808/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vikas Rajvanshi,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

1) or 234E, as the case may be, stands fully paid or satisfactory arrangements for payment of the principal demand under these sections have been made. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Director General of Income-tax may also impose any other condition as deemed fit for the said reduction or waiver of interest.” In the present case

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80G

section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, only because assessee could not place on record registration certificate issued u/s 12AA of the Act, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied. Further, Rs.1,58,000/- is paid by the assessee is fee for late filing of TDS return u/s 234E

AVVNL AEN CSD-II,,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), , GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 258/JPR/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

234E Under clause of sub section 1 of 200A. 1. The assesse has Filed an appeal with Ld CIT (appeals) JAIPUR which was technically delayed. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact non/delay service of order and thereafter incumbent officer got transferred and we did not find any notice or not about relating to the said

XEN (O&M=M) AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.,AJMER vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

ITA 1064/JPR/2019[2013-14-24 Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Jan 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 1Section 200ASection 234Section 234E

234E Under clause ( c) subsection 1 of 200A. 1. The assesse has filed an appeal with Ld CIT(appeals) JAIPUR which was technically delayed. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact that applicant has not receivd the notice by post as well as by email. After ITO demand notice the applicant checked income tax site

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1026/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1026/JPR/2025 निर्धरणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Agrasen Medical Relief & Research Society Central Spine, Sector -7, Vidhyadhr Nagar Jaipur - 302 039 (Raj) बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATA 7540F The ITO (E) Ward - 1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :Shri P.C.Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudh

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 2(15)Section 80G

1)(ac)(i) of the Act, the precondition of which is that the trust or institution is registered u/s 12AA of the 7 AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY VS ITO, (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR Act. Thus, there is no doubt that the assessee is registered under section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, only because assessee could