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.

6 results for “TDS”+ Section 272A(2)(k)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune199 Delhi100 Chennai87 Mumbai69 Bangalore48 Karnataka26 Allahabad22 Ahmedabad19 Kolkata18 Cochin17 Jaipur13 Surat11 Panaji10 Agra8 Visakhapatnam7 Cuttack7 Raipur7 Nagpur6 Lucknow5 Hyderabad5 Chandigarh5 Varanasi5 Jodhpur2 Kerala1 Indore1 Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E31 Section 200A21 Section 271H8 Section 115W6 TDS6 Section 272A(2)(k)5 Section 1434 Section 200(3)4 Section 2503 Penalty

M/S ATASHA ASHIRWAD BUILDERS,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T (TDS) RANGE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 480/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 206C(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS statement was not filed in time, then penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been held

DIGP GC CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

3

ITA 295/NAG/2022[2015-2016 Qtr-4]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC(TDS) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 294/NAG/2022[2015-2016, Qtr-3]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

HASANTE BURHANIAH FIDAYYIAH TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 9/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CIT–DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 250

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2011. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub–section (3) of section 200 or any proviso