Section 203 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 203 is CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd. (339 ITR 382), cited in 45 of the 28 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 203

CIT v. Jagatjit Industries Ltd.
339 ITR 382 · 2011 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An assessee's consistently followed accounting method, if previously accepted by the Department, cannot be rejected by the tax authorities unless they establish that it distorts the true profits. The doctrine of consistency applies.

Yashpal Sahni v. Rekha Hajarnavis
165 Taxmann 144 · 2007 · High Court
27
citing judgments

If a deductor deducts TDS but does not deposit it into the government account, the assessee is not liable for that TDS.

CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
244 ITR 417 · 2000 · High Court
19
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 272A(2) and 271C cannot be levied for belated TDS deposit if the amount along with interest has been paid, as this constitutes a technical or venial breach and does not cause revenue loss. The Assessing Officer's discretion to levy penalties must be exercised judiciously.

Technologies v. CIT
195 Taxmann 323 · 2010 · High Court
9
citing judgments
1. CIT v. Harsiddh Construction Pvt. Ltd.
157 Taxmann 52 · High Court
5
citing judgments
U S Technologies P. Ltd. v. CIT
453 ITR 644 · 2023 · Supreme Court
4
citing judgments
Puskhar P.C. Jain v. UOI
262 Taxmann 118 · 2019 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 203

Bhaskar Sen, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-16(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 851/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 147Section 203

ITO, WD-31(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Bata India Ltd. Employees Statutory Provident Fund, Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 103/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 103/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2006-07

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kr.Das, JCIT.Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.Jhajharia, AR
Section 10Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(1)Section 17Section 44A

ACIT, TDS, Noida vs. M/S St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5597/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. I.C. Sudhir & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2007-08 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Tds, Noida Plot No. 11, Knoledge Park-111, Greater Noida Gir/Pan : Aaacs3406M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Smt. Rishpal Bedi, Sr.Dr Respondent By Sh. K.V.S.R. Krishna, Ca Date Of Hearing 19.04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 10.06.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 19/07/2013 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax(Appeals), Noida For Assessment Year 2007-08 Raising Following Grounds: “That Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Directing To Delete The Order U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T. Act Passed By The Assessing Officer Ignoring The Fact That Assessee Must Follow The Mercantile System Of Accounting For These Payments & Erred In Further Allowing The Assessee To Follow The Cash System Of Accounting For These Payments Solely On The Grund Of Sap Environment Being Followed By The Assessee.” 2. The Facts In Brief Are That During Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) Verification By The Tds Assessing Officer, It Was Observed That Tax Was Not Deducted On Certain Expenses Debited In Profit & Loss. The Assessing Officer Called For The Tax Audit Report In Form No. 3 Cd & Observed That The Auditor Had Also Pointed

Section 145(1)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40a

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. M/s.Novopan Industries Limited

ITTA/349/2013HC Telangana21 Aug 2013
Section 166Section 173

The United India Insurance Co Ltd vs. Hanumantappa S/O Late Durgappa

WP/61316/2009HC Karnataka14 Aug 2012

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ajit J.Gunjal Writ Petition No.61316/2009 (Gm-Cpc) Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, Belgaum, Represented By Its Divisional Office, Uma Maheshwar Building, Hospet. ... Petitioner (By Sri. C V Angadi, Adv.) & Hanumantappa S/O Late Durgappa, Age About 17 Years, Occ Student, Since Minor Represented By His Mother, Smt Ambamma W/O Durgappa, Age About 37 Years, Occ Coolie, R/O Buvanahalli Village, Tq Hospet, Dist Bellary. ... Respondent (By Sri. Y.V.Raviraj To Take Notice For Income Tax Department, Respondent Service Of Notice Is Held Sufficient.) This Petition Is Filed Under Articles 226 & 227 Of The Constitution Of India Praying To Call For The Entire Records In Exe.Case No.26/2008 On The File Of The Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Hospet, Resulted In Passing Of The Impugned Order At Annexure-A.

Section 194ASection 194ESection 197ASection 203Section 3

Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) vs. Gom Overseas Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 847 / 2007HC Delhi07 May 2008
Section 203Section 206CSection 272A(2)(g)

C I T vs. Anil Kumar Arya

ITA/508/2007HC Punjab & Haryana04 Apr 2008
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 194Section 199Section 203Section 260ASection 44Section 44A

Trustees of H.E.H. the Nizam'S Supplemental Family Trust vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

CIVIL APPEAL No. 5395/1999Supreme Court16 Feb 2000

Bench: 2 Judges

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 237
Section 203 of the Income Tax Act — Case Laws | BharatTax