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.

8 results for “TDS”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi2,129 Mumbai1,906 Bangalore695 Chennai549 Pune527 Kolkata368 Ahmedabad249 Hyderabad232 Jaipur218 Raipur208 Indore187 Karnataka151 Chandigarh134 Nagpur104 Visakhapatnam90 Cochin76 Surat65 Lucknow57 Rajkot53 Cuttack46 Jodhpur37 Dehradun34 Guwahati24 Agra22 Amritsar21 Patna16 Panaji15 Telangana15 Jabalpur13 SC13 Varanasi11 Ranchi8 Allahabad5 Calcutta3 Kerala2 Orissa2

Key Topics

Section 200A28 Section 271C24 Section 234E20 TDS8 Deduction7 Section 194A6 Section 2016 Penalty4 Disallowance4 Section 250

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JT. CIT, TDS,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2024[08-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,DHANBAD vs. JCIT TDS, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

3

Section 271(1)(c)3

ITA 77/RAN/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed

ITAT Ranchi

29 Apr 2025

AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that

M/S. BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED,,DHANBAD vs. JCIT, TDS CIRCLE,, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 76/RAN/2024[09-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 194ASection 201Section 271CSection 273BSection 40

TDS demand under section 201 or to impose penalty u/s 271C for default of non-deduction of TDS. 3. For that

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 53/RAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.53/Ran/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Navneet Modi….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi-834008. [Pan: Actpm1511F] Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi.………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 28, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.10.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)

TDS certificate to the assessee at the time of filing of Income Tax Return for the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Assessing Officer rejected all the contentions made by the assessee on single line order that the contention of the assessee was not accepted and the amount is treated as income not disclosed and levied the impugned penalty

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 14/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 13/RAN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234ESection 250

TDS return u/s 200A of the Act, fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E of the Act. 4. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fatehraj Singhvi vs. Union of India” 73 Taxmann.com 252 order dated 26.08.2016, wherein

ITO, TDS,, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHINNAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 17/RAN/2022[15-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source

ITO, TDS, RANCHI, RANCHI vs. M/S. CHHINAMASTIKA CEMENT & ISPAT PVT. LTD.,, RAMGARH

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 18/RAN/2022[16-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi27 May 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 133Section 133A

TDS being unknown, interest was incapable of calculations, it could be said that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable - Held, yes - 13. We also find substantial merit in the second submission of the learned counsel for the assessee, namely, that interest under section 201(1A) was not leviable because the date of payment of tax deducted at source