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.

126 results for “TDS”+ Section 271(1)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai873Delhi845Bangalore283Chennai196Karnataka134Kolkata126Raipur93Ahmedabad92Jaipur89Hyderabad86Pune54Indore35Chandigarh32Visakhapatnam23Lucknow18Rajkot18Nagpur17Surat14Amritsar9Guwahati7Patna6Cochin5Dehradun5SC4Varanasi4Telangana4Jabalpur3Jodhpur3Cuttack3Panaji3Agra2Ranchi1Allahabad1Orissa1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 234E93Section 143(3)66Deduction54TDS46Section 200A42Section 4039Addition to Income37Disallowance35Section 14729Section 250

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1616/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground at (b

Showing 1–20 of 126 · Page 1 of 7

27
Section 115J24
Section 271H22

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTAN URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.(HINDUSTAN VIDYUT PRODUCT LTD.,), NEW DELHI

ITA 1615/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 246ASection 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 40ASection 9(1)(vii)

271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned order. Initiation of penalty proceedings is not an order imposing penalty and therefore does not come under the ambit of Section 246A of the Act meaning thereby that it is premature at this juncture. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.1 With regard to the ground at (b

DCIT, C.C. I, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMARNATH SHROFF, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1494/KOL/2010[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS of Rs.l,63,242/-, self assessment tax u/s.140A of Rs.5,27,991/- and regular tax of Rs. 2,01,275/-paid on 22-07-2008. The appellant is still due to pay tax and interest of Rs.53,445/- . For Assessment Year 2005-06, the appellant on a total income of Rs. 84,75,7201- was liable

AMAR NATH SHROFF,KOLKATA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

In the result ITA Nos.1797 to 1800/Kol/2009 are allowed while ITA Nos

ITA 1797/KOL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ]

For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Pande, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

TDS of Rs.l,63,242/-, self assessment tax u/s.140A of Rs.5,27,991/- and regular tax of Rs. 2,01,275/-paid on 22-07-2008. The appellant is still due to pay tax and interest of Rs.53,445/- . For Assessment Year 2005-06, the appellant on a total income of Rs. 84,75,7201- was liable

M/S PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2298/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2020AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pricewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited……...............................……………………......Appellant Block-Ep, Plot –Y14 Salt Lake City Sector-V Kolkata – 700 091 [Pan : Aabcp 9181 H] Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (It), Circle-2(1), Kolkata……..........................…....Appellant Appearances By: Shri Kanchun Kaushal, A/R & Shri Bikash Kr. Jain, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Vijay Shankar, Cit, D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 25Th, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 29Th, 2020 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :-

Section 144C(13)

b) The notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is non The notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, is non-est in law for the est in law for the reason that, the penalty notice did not mention the specific charge i.e. reason that, the penalty notice did not mention the specific charge i.e. reason

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2463/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income with respect to addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liabilities. The Hon'ble High Court has considered that in the case in the penalty proceedings, all the three authorities had concurrently arrived at a fact that claim made by assessee with regard

ANUNOY MUKHERJEE,DURGAPUR vs. I.T.O., WARD-1(4), DURGAPUR, DURGAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 555/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 555/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anunoy Mukherjee Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Vs (4), Durgapur Near Hdfc Bank Bamunara Kanksa Durgapur - 713212 [Pan : Cydpm3295A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & Shri Rohitash Gupta, C.A. Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21/07/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of One (1) Day In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Only Issue That Arises For Our Consideration Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271B Of The Act At Rs.1,36,214/-, Levied For Not Getting The Books Of Account Audited U/S 44Ab Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kr. Agrawal, C.A. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 194CSection 250Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271G

TDS of Rs.30,896/-. The case selected for limited scrutiny through CASS for the reason of cash deposit during the year. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. Assessing Officer on going through the details of bank account held by the assessee with HDFC Bank observed that cash of Rs.1,48,19,170/- was deposited

DEBJYOTI MISHRA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-22(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1411/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D.Shah, ld.ARFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, ld.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 234ASection 40

TDS. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that CIT(A) has rightly deleted the disallowance and we confirm the same.” 4.As the issue raised by the revenue is exactly on similar facts in the present case, taking a consistent view, we are of the view that the amended provisions of section 194C(1) of the Act will not apply

SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 1303/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhatacharya V/S. Acit, Circle-55, Bh-167, Salt Lake, Sector- 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Ii, Kolkata-700 016 Kidwai Road, [Pan No.Aedpb 2611 R] Kolkata – 700 016 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 271(1)Section 28

TDS (-) 1,29,449 Total 25,23,977 ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya v. ACIT, Cir-55, Kol. Page 5 Advance tax paid (-) 25,000 Total 24,98,977 Less paid u/s. 140A (-) 6,600 Total 24,92,377 Add 234B 7,50,419 Add 234C 123 Total Tax payable 30,23,135” In this appeal challenge

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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 Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

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

Section 200Section 200ASection 234E

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 396/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System (hereinafter referred as ‘TRACES’) wherein short deduction of tax deducted at source was reported and accordingly demand was raised on the assessee along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for all the quarters stated hereinbelow:- Sl. PeriodFY Inti Intimatio Order Amount Interest in Total in Disputed N mati n Pass

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 397/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System (hereinafter referred as ‘TRACES’) wherein short deduction of tax deducted at source was reported and accordingly demand was raised on the assessee along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for all the quarters stated hereinbelow:- Sl. PeriodFY Inti Intimatio Order Amount Interest in Total in Disputed N mati n Pass

TDK INDIA PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, UTTAR-PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 393, 394, 395 & 396/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Tdk India Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income Kulia Kanchrapara Road Vs Tax - Cpc, Tds P.O. Netaji Subhas Sanatorium Kalyani Nadia - 741251 [Pan : Aaaci6950Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Assessee ) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anup Sinha, A/RFor Respondent: Shri G. Hukugha Sema, CIT D/R
Section 201Section 250

TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System (hereinafter referred as ‘TRACES’) wherein short deduction of tax deducted at source was reported and accordingly demand was raised on the assessee along with interest under section 201(1A) of the Act for all the quarters stated hereinbelow:- Sl. PeriodFY Inti Intimatio Order Amount Interest in Total in Disputed N mati n Pass