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.

8 results for “section 68”+ Section 272A(2)(k)clear

Sorted by relevance

Chennai37Karnataka21Jaipur15Ahmedabad10Delhi9Mumbai8Pune6Chandigarh5Lucknow3Bangalore2SC1Cuttack1Indore1

Key Topics

Section 272A(2)(k)25Section 200(3)7Penalty6TDS6Section 143(3)3Section 120(4)(b)3Section 143(2)2Section 1272

BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

ITA 6943/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri. Amogh M. GhaisasFor Respondent: Shri. Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 194CSection 272A(2)(k)

272A(2)(k) of the 1961 Act for delay filing of the statement of tax deducted at source, as under:- Quarter TDS No. of days TDS Amount Penalty Rs. Penalty amount statement delay (Rs.) 100/ - per day restricted to ( Rs.) of delays Form no. (davs xlOOl

DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4661/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

68,000 09 4 26Q Q3 2008- 70700300541931 15.01.09 26.08.10 588 50114 50,114 09 5 26Q Q4 2008- 70700300541920 15.06.09 26.08.10 437 138134 43,700 09 TOTAL 2,89,551 We have observed that the assessee had made the TDS payments to credit of Central Government but the assessee has not filed the quarterly TDS statements in form

DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4659/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

68,000 09 4 26Q Q3 2008- 70700300541931 15.01.09 26.08.10 588 50114 50,114 09 5 26Q Q4 2008- 70700300541920 15.06.09 26.08.10 437 138134 43,700 09 TOTAL 2,89,551 We have observed that the assessee had made the TDS payments to credit of Central Government but the assessee has not filed the quarterly TDS statements in form

DR KHAN INDUSTRIAL CONSULTANTS P.LTD,THANE vs. ADDL CIT TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 4660/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4659/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

68,000 09 4 26Q Q3 2008- 70700300541931 15.01.09 26.08.10 588 50114 50,114 09 5 26Q Q4 2008- 70700300541920 15.06.09 26.08.10 437 138134 43,700 09 TOTAL 2,89,551 We have observed that the assessee had made the TDS payments to credit of Central Government but the assessee has not filed the quarterly TDS statements in form

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

ITA 6772/MUM/2010[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2024AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 120(4)(b)Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2

272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing

HAVISTHA STEEL FAB P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. TRO (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 341/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Havistha Steel Fab P. Ltd., Addl. Commissioner Of It 302, Oxford, Swapana Nagari, (Tds), Range-1, Yogi Hills, Vs. Mumbai Mulund, Mumbai - 400080 Pan: Aaach6987Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, D.R
Section 272A(2)(k)

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.99,796/- for delay in filing return in form No.26Q stating that assessee had committed default without any reasonable cause. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the order of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty observing that non availability of PAN does not constitute reasonable cause

SHREERANG MERCANTILE (I) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) 3, MUMBAI

ITA 7495/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/7495, 4599 & 4600/Mum/2014 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 वष" Shreerang Mercantile (I) Pvt. Ltd. Addl.Cit, (Tds)-3, Room No.1001 501, Shreerang House, 5Th Floor Smt. K.G. Mittal New Marine Lines Ayurvedic Hospital Bldg., Vs. Mumbai-400 020. Charni Road Pan:Aadcs 0954 M Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-Dr Assessee By: Shri Dharmendra M. Shah सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.07.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Orders Dated 8.10.2014 & 19.5.2014, Of The Cit(A)-14 The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Three Years.Issue Involved In All The Appeals Is About Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K)Of The Act,For Filing Quarterly Returns In Form Number 24Q/ 26Q Belatedly.So,We Are Adjudica - Ting All The Appeals By Single Order.

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy-DR
Section 200(3)Section 254(1)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act,that assessee was expected to be in full knowledge of its statutory obligation under the Act, that the failure of the knowledge or lack of advancement with computer technology was not a sufficient ground for not filing TDS returns.Finally,he imposed a penalty of Rs.1,68

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

2. No Copy of material / information / statement confronted to the Appellant: - “2A. If no copy of the exact material / information / statements as referred in the assessment order and ultimately relied upon by the 27 Shri Deepak Valji Karia A.O. to support the addition were not confronted the Appellant during the assessment proceeding, this material has to be completely ignored.” Assessee