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.

14 results for “TDS”+ Section 273Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi99Bangalore77Mumbai69Karnataka45Nagpur21Ahmedabad15Kolkata14Lucknow12Hyderabad10Jaipur10Agra9Indore9Surat9Cochin8Pune7Chandigarh7Panaji6Chennai5Jodhpur4Amritsar4Telangana4Ranchi3SC2Kerala1Varanasi1Orissa1Visakhapatnam1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 271C17Section 272A(2)(k)15TDS14Section 201(1)12Section 20111Penalty10Section 271A9Section 194L8Section 194H8Deduction

DCIT, CIRCLE - 57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HEIGHT INSURANCE SERVICES LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1939/KOL/2010[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Dr. Adhir Kumar Bar, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Bajoria, Sr. Advocate
Section 133ASection 194Section 194CSection 194DSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

273B states that notwithstanding anything contained in section 271C, no penalty shall be imposed on the person or the assessee for failure to deduct tax at source if such person or the assessee proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. Therefore, the liability to levy of penalty can be fastened only on persons

8
Section 2507
Addition to Income3

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE-2, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1947/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

TDS under section 194H of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant was engaged in selling liquor to its distributors, on a principal-to-principal basis, and the trade discount under various schemes aggregating to INR 10,26,18,968/- cannot partake the character of "commission" or "brokerage" for the purposes of section 194H of the Act. 3.2. That

N C SHAW AND CO BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1925/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 271CSection 28

TDS under section 194H of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant was engaged in selling liquor to its distributors, on a principal-to-principal basis, and the trade discount under various schemes aggregating to INR 10,26,18,968/- cannot partake the character of "commission" or "brokerage" for the purposes of section 194H of the Act. 3.2. That

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 return in terms of section 273B and the penalty under section 272(A)(K) is hereby deleted.” In view

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

M/S MUKHERJEE ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 33(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 401/KOL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2004-05 M/S Mukherjee Enterprise, V/S. Income Tax Officer, 63/4, Harish Chatterjee Ward-33(3), 10B, Street, Kolkta-700 025 Middleton Row, [Pan No.Aaffm 1374 C] Kolkata - 700071 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 274

TDS and maintenance of Books of Account as accompanying the Return (excepting enhancing rate of Net Profit on estimate; the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in upholding the order ITA No.401/Kol/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 M/s Mukherjee Enterprise v. ITO, Wd.33-(3) Kol. Page 3 U/s 271A rejecting app’s explanation for failure to produce the books

MMJ EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE - 58, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 18/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.18/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT
Section 200Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 273B of the Act. Further, the Act does not provide 273B of the Act. Further, the Act does not provide for any relaxation for late filing of quarterly Statement of TDS

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. JCIT, RANGE-58(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/KOL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1496/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

TDS were duly submitted to the ld AO. The ld AO however, observed that the reasons stated for the delay does not constitute ‘reasonable cause’ within the meaning of section 273B

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISTION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. JCIT, R-59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1256/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194ASection 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

273B of the Act for its failure to deduct tax at source, therefore, he proposed 100% of the TDS default u/s. 271C of the Act to the tune of Rs.22,92,201/-. Since the penalty amount levied on the SLAO is a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as stated

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-TDS, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1032/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P. M. Jagtap & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 194ASection 194LSection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

273B of the Act for its failure to deduct tax at source, therefore, he proposed 100% of the TDS default u/s. 271C of the Act to the tune of Rs.22,92,201/-. Since the penalty amount levied on the SLAO is a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct or pay as stated

TURNER MORRISON LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR, KOL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 530/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR
Section 143(1)

273B and 278AA of the Act respectively. 9. Importantly, Section 201(2), provides that where a person who, although required to, does not deduct tax 23 or does not pay the tax deducted at source or after deducting fails to pay wholly or part of the tax as required under the Act, would have a statutory charge created

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

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

D.CI.T.(TDS), CIRCLE-58, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S J.J.EXPORTERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and Cross Objection of the assessee, both are dismissed

ITA 2569/KOL/2013[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Jun 2016AY 2007-2008

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

For Appellant: Shri S.Jhajharia, FCA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Sudipta Guha, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271CSection 273BSection 36(1)(iii)Section 40

Section 273B of the I.T Act. It is a fit case for imposing penalty u/s. 271C on the amount as given below: Amount Paid T D S S.C & E. C Total Rs.3,84,07,55 Rs.38,40,75 Rs.5,10,82 Rs.43,51,75 8/- 6/- 0/- 6/- In view of above, it is held that penalty u/s. 271C