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.

33 results for “TDS”+ Section 234Eclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune638Chennai495Patna466Bangalore394Delhi338Mumbai157Cochin84Nagpur62Visakhapatnam47Hyderabad43Kolkata33Raipur25Dehradun21Jaipur18Indore14Cuttack13Lucknow13Panaji11Amritsar11Ahmedabad6Rajkot6Surat6Chandigarh5Jodhpur5Agra5Ranchi2Guwahati2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 234E184Section 200A94TDS33Section 271H21Deduction17Section 20113Condonation of Delay9Section 2008Section 2507Section 5

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 416/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 422/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 200A(1)(c)6
Limitation/Time-bar5
17 Dec 2021
AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 419/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or Bhaskar Roy, AYs 2013-14 to 2015-16 refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 575/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 200ASection 234E

TDS statement and the consequent issuance of the intimation to the deductor, the same determined as payable by it or refundable by it. But, the relevant aspect is that, in initial provisions of Section 200A, there was no reference for fee payable under Section 234E

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)

Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 178/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)

Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)

Section 234E while processing the applications for TDS under Section 200A. Hence, in such view of the matter, this Court

SUSHIL KUMAR BERLIA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., TDS, WARD - 5(2), SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1773/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 201ASection 220(2)Section 220ASection 234ESection 250

TDS return for Quarter 2 for the FY 2012-13, original return was filed on 27.07.2013 and processed on 12.09.2013 and it is also the definite case of the assessee that the same was revised and rectified u/s 154 of the Act on 26.01.2024 wherein levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act @ Rs. 200/- per day to the tune

THE PRINCIPAL, SALDIHA COLLEGE,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 4(4), TDS, BANKURA & PURULIA

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2455/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A No.2455/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) The Principal, Saldiha College Vs. Ito, Ward – 4(4), Tds Bankura & Purulia Saldiha, Bankura – 722 173. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaajs 5748 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/12/2019 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31/12/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Durgapur Dated 30.07.2018 Passed In Case No.161/Cit(A)/Dgp/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 200A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 272ASection 2jSection 2oSection 44E

section 234E. (Para 20). 13. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Gujrat High Court, it is held that the AO CPC was entitled and was very much within his rights to levy late fee u/s 234 in intimation u/s 200A of the Act. The appeal is, therefore, decided against the appellant and is treated as ‘dismissed’.” 4. Learned

M/S. EXCELLA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3), TDS, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Nov 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manunatha G & Shri Sonjoy Sarmai.T.A. No.2274/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Excella Realtors Pvt. Ltd..........................................................……….…Appellant 2, Dharma Das Row, Rash Behari Avenue, W.B-700026. [Pan: Aacce1856B] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Tds, Kolkata………………….…..….......……..…...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Jaydeep Chakraborty, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 18, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 03, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 01.10.2024, Arising Out Of The Order Passed Under Section 200A(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, M/S Excella Relators Private Limited, Is Engaged In The Business Of Construction & Land Development. A Demand Notice Was Issued By The Tds-Cpc, Kolkata, Raising A Total Demand Of ₹4,59,653. After Giving Credit For Certain Adjustments Available In The Traces Portal, An Outstanding Demand Of ₹99,482 Towards Interest Under Section 201(1A) & ₹46,400 Towards Late Fee Under Section 234E Remained Payable.

Section 200A(1)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 201Section 234E

TDS-CPC, Kolkata, raising a total demand of ₹4,59,653. After giving credit for certain adjustments available in the TRACES portal, an outstanding demand of ₹99,482 towards interest under section 201(1A) and ₹46,400 towards late fee under section 234E

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 253/KOL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.253/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 National Insurance Co. Ltd...................................................................……Appellant 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aaacn9967E] Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds,Ghaziabad, Up...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Was Wrong In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Intimation Dated 02/06/2019 Issued U/S 200A For The Financial Year 2018-19 (Relevant For The Assessment Year 2019- 20). 2. That Without Prejudice To The Contention Raised In Ground No. 1 Above, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Was Wrong In Stating In The Appellate Order That The Appeal Of The Appellant Had Allegedly Related

Section 195Section 200ASection 201Section 234ESection 250

TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act, shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of Rs. 200/- for everyday during which the failure continues. It is also evident that aggrieved by the provision of Section 234E

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 679/KOL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

section 234E on account of late submission of TDS form should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 678/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

section 234E on account of late submission of TDS form should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 680/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

section 234E on account of late submission of TDS form should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied

GOUTAM CHANDRA DAS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS WARD- 1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 681/KOL/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 200ASection 201Section 234E

section 234E on account of late submission of TDS form should be deleted. 6. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied