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.

23 results for “TDS”+ Section 272Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Pune325 Delhi221 Mumbai125 Chennai88 Bangalore71 Visakhapatnam56 Karnataka26 Nagpur25 Kolkata23 Ahmedabad20 Lucknow18 Panaji15 Indore12 Cochin12 Surat11 Raipur10 Hyderabad9 Agra8 Varanasi6 Chandigarh6 Jaipur4 Rajkot4 Patna3 Jodhpur2 Cuttack2 Allahabad1 Jabalpur1 Guwahati1 SC1 Amritsar1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 234E127 Section 200A58 TDS23 Section 271H22 Section 272A(2)(k)20 Deduction12 Penalty11 Section 2009 Section 2o6 Section 271B

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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]

Showing 1–20 of 23 · Page 1 of 2

5

Condonation of Delay2

Section 200A

Section 234E

TDS statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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

TDS statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

ACIT, CIRCLE - 3, ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S. SANJAY TRANSPORT AGENCY, BURDWAN

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1627/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Debasish Roy, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Sarana, FCA

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

TDS) within the time limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that is a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed. Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A

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)

TDS statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A

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)

TDS statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A

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)

TDS statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A

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

JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT,(TDS), RANGE-57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1822/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1822/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-1(1), Burdwan [Pan: Aaccj 0540 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS), Range-57, Kolkata[ in short the ld AO] under section 272A(2)(k)/274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

MMJ EXPORTS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, RG-58(TDS), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 666/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kr. Tiwari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT

Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

TDS which eventually lead to delayed filing of returns constitute reasonable cause in terms of section 273B of the Act and hence penalty u/s 272A

HARIKISHAN DASS RAMKISHAN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 45(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as stated above

ITA 1887/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Jain, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Snehtpal Datta, JCIT, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 197A(2)Section 263Section 272A(2)(f)Section 40

TDS at source on such amount. Besides, the assessee also submitted that it is not conversant with intricate tax laws and it is not assisted by any qualified or competent tax advisor. The assessee also submitted that it did not derive any pecuniary benefits and does not have ulterior motive. 4. Having considered the submissions of the assessee

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

272A providing for penalty in case of default in filing the withholding tax statements. (b) With effect from 01 July, 2012, three major changes were introduced in the Act – Section 234E was introduced to levy fee of INR 2oo per day for every day of default in case of late filing of the withholding tax statements (c) The intent

ALLAHABAD BANK, NAKTALA BRANCH,KOLKATA vs. JCIT, TDS RG.57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical

ITA 1384/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1384/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Allahabad Bank, Vs. Jcit(Tds), Range-57, 10B, Middleton Row, 8Th Floor, Naktala Branch, 364/23A, Nsc Bose Road, Kolkata-700071 Kolkata-700040 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Cala 06329 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Tapas Dutta, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-2011, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xvi, Kolkata, In Appeal No.138/Cit(A)-Xvi/Jcit,R-57/13-14/Kol, Dated 28.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Jt.Commissoner Of Income Tax-Tds (Ao),U/S.272A(2)(K)/274 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 08.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Quarterly Tds Returns Late Therefore The Assessing Officer (Tds) Imposed Penalty On The Assessee U/S 272A(2)(K) Of The Act At Rs.50,336/- 3. The Captioned Appeal Is Time Barred By 32 Days. The Assessee Filed Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Said Appeal. The Assessee Explained The Reasons For Delay Stating That Assessee Is A Schedule Bank

For Appellant: Shri Tapas Dutta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT

Section 1Section 206ASection 249Section 272Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS) imposed penalty on the assessee U/s 272A(2)(k) of the Act at Rs.50,336/- 3. The captioned appeal is time barred by 32 days. The assessee filed petition for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. The assessee explained the reasons for delay stating that assessee is a schedule bank 2 Allahabad Bank and need to take

M/S SLS INVESTMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 59(3)/TDS, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1827/KOL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1827/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S Sls Investments Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-59(3),Tds,Kolkata [Pan: Aadcs 9398 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

272A(2)(f) of the Act for violation of procedural requirements provided in section 197A(2) of the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid findings, we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee could not be treated as assessee in default in the facts and circumstances 6 7 M/s SLS Investments Private Limited A.Yr