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.

16 results for “TDS”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,129Mumbai1,906Bangalore695Chennai549Pune533Kolkata368Ahmedabad278Hyderabad264Jaipur240Raipur209Indore187Karnataka151Chandigarh142Nagpur104Visakhapatnam90Surat79Cochin76Lucknow57Rajkot53Cuttack47Jabalpur40Jodhpur37Dehradun35Agra24Guwahati24Panaji23Amritsar21Patna16Telangana15SC13Varanasi11Ranchi8Allahabad6Calcutta3Orissa2Kerala2

Key Topics

Section 142(1)15Section 14715Section 25012Section 271(1)(b)11Penalty10Addition to Income9TDS9Section 143(2)8Section 271(1)(c)7Section 143(3)

BIJAY KUMAR SARAF,DALDALI BAZAR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. DC/AC CIRCLE 1,MUZFFARPUR, IT-OFFICE, POLICE LINE, SIKANDERPUR MUZZAFFARPUR

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

ITA 205/PAT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 194(7)Section 194C(6)Section 250

penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act was also filed. It was stated that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained part of the disallowance even though the assessee was not liable for deduction of any TDS

7
Section 2636
Natural Justice6

BBCPL-RCPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 122/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS. Hence, Assessee cannot suppress its receipts. Hence, total receipt of the assessee for the year can be taken as base for the purpose of calculation of profits and gains from business of the assessee. In the absence of proper books of accounts, for the purpose of calculation of true and correct profits and gains from business of the assessee

BBCPL-SKPL (JV),JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

TDS. Hence, Assessee cannot suppress its receipts. Hence, total receipt of the assessee for the year can be taken as base for the purpose of calculation of profits and gains from business of the assessee. In the absence of proper books of accounts, for the purpose of calculation of true and correct profits and gains from business of the assessee

BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMUI vs. PCIT CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 123/PAT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

TDS. Hence, Assessee cannot suppress its receipts. Hence, total receipt of the assessee for the year can be taken as base for the purpose of calculation of profits and gains from business of the assessee. In the absence of proper books of accounts, for the purpose of calculation of true and correct profits and gains from business of the assessee

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

penalty under section 271AAC of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for AY 2017-18 and as per the information available with the Department, it was seen that the assessee had carried out financial transactions relating to cash withdrawals in current account, cash

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 181/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

penalty under section 271AAC of the Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for AY 2017-18 and as per the information available with the Department, it was seen that the assessee had carried out financial transactions relating to cash withdrawals in current account, cash

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 355/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

penalty in certain cases clearly indicate that the faculty members are salaried employee. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in treating the income declared under the head profession as salary income and erred in disallowing expenses of Rs.7,32,030/- 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in holding that

SHEKHAR NARAYAN,PATNA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 354/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 13Section 194Section 194JSection 250Section 44A

penalty in certain cases clearly indicate that the faculty members are salaried employee. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in treating the income declared under the head profession as salary income and erred in disallowing expenses of Rs.7,32,030/- 5. For that the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in holding that

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 216/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 217/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

SANJAY YADAV,JAHANABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 218/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) I.T.A. Nos.: 216, 217 & 218/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Yadav and 271(1)(b) of the Act respectively. Since all these appeals were taken up together, they were heard together and are being decided vide this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 2. The assessee is in appeal before

AL-RABIA MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL WELFARE & TRUST,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, PATNA

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

ITA 283/PAT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna05 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceeding. Therefore, these three grounds are rejected. 3. In response to the notice of hearing, Shri Rajiv Kumar, ld. Counsel for the assessee appeared on 22nd March, 2022. Thereafter no one has appeared. With the assistance of ld. D.R., we have gone through the record carefully. 4. In Grounds No. 2 & 3, the assessee has taken a common issue

PIONEER EDUCATION SOCIETY,HARYANA vs. ITO, PATNA

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

ITA 405/PAT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No. 405/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 Pioneer Education Society,……….…….....……Appellant C-310/311, Unitech Business Zone Nirvana Country, South City-Ii, Sector-50, Haryana, Pin Code No.122018 [Pan:Aadap0174C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………….Respondent Ward-1(1), Patna, Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Bhawan, New Dak Bunglow, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances By: Shri Yatin Sharma, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Rinku Singh, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: April 21, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: April 24, 2025 O R D E R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

penalty notice under section 271(1)(b) was issued to the assessee on 30.11.2018 requiring compliance on 05.12.2018. Again, letter under section 133(6) was issued to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Valachery Branch, Chennai seeking copy of all bank statements of the assessee. Copy of Bank statements received from the Branch and from where it was noticed that

SEEMA SRIVASTAVA,PATNA vs. ITO,DC/AC-6, PATNA, PATNA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 715/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna06 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(2)Section 48Section 54Section 54F

TDS of Rs. 1,50,000/- u/s 194-IB of the Act. The Ld. AO issued a show cause notice dated 30/11/2019 in response to which the reply was filed by the assessee. As regards the exemption u/s 54/54F of the Act, the assessee had submitted purchase deed of only the new asset against which the deduction was claimed. Therefore

I.T.O. vs. M/S KUMAR CONSTRUCLTION,

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

ITA 10/PAT/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Patna17 Oct 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(b)Section 40A(3)

penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance of the notices at the end of the assessee. Ultimately the ld. Assessing Officer gone through the books of account submitted before her and made these two additions by recording the following finding:- “Addition u/s 40A(3) for payments exceeding Rs.20,000/- through bearer cheques:- On perusal of Books

PAVAN KUMAR BHAGAT,SAHARSA vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), SAHARSA, SAHARA

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

ITA 281/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37Section 69A

penalty proceeding under Section 271AAC, 272A(1)(d) and 271F of the Act. 17. For that the appellant shall place any other point/points at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration and as per information available with