This compilation indexes twelve Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) rulings involving penalties levied under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, primarily arising from delays in furnishing quarterly TDS statements under Section 200(3). The rulings span multiple ITAT benches across India — Agra, Pune, Allahabad, Bangalore, Delhi, Chandigarh, and Mumbai — covering assessment years ranging from 2006-07 to 2013-14, with the most recent order pronounced in October 2025. This index is intended for in-house tax teams, Big-4 associates, and law firm researchers who need a structured reference point for understanding the procedural landscape of TDS penalty litigation at the appellate tribunal level.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled for legal research purposes. Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional opinion. Readers must independently verify all rulings against original judgments and consult qualified advisors before acting on any information contained herein.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for the levy of a penalty where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered, in due time, a copy of the statement referred to in Section 200(3) — that is, the quarterly statement of tax deducted at source (TDS). The penalty prescribed is Rs. 100 for every day during which the failure continues, subject to the condition that the total penalty shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible. The provision operates as a strict liability mechanism for delayed submission of TDS returns, and the question of whether reasonable cause existed for the delay — a defence available under Section 273B of the Act — frequently arises in appellate proceedings before the ITAT.

The 12 rulings

1. Garrison Emgomeer (E/M) Air Force vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Date: 30 October 2025
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal was filed before ITAT Agra as ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year 2012-13) and ITA Nos. 132 to 135/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year 2013-14), against separate impugned orders each dated 18.08.2021 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Act. The appeals were heard on 13.10.2025 and pronounced on 30.10.2025. Per the source preview, the matter was directed against CIT(A) orders arising from penalty proceedings; the full substantive reasoning is not disclosed in the available source preview.

2. Star Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Ltd, Nashik vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (TDS)

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 4 May 2023
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 251/PUN/2023) for Assessment Year 2011-12 was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC], Delhi dated 30.01.2023 under Section 250 read with Section 254 of the Act. The assessee raised grounds contending that the CIT(A) erred in not deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,09,304/- as directed by a prior ITAT order, and further alleged that the CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction by confirming a penalty of Rs. 1,09,304/- instead of adjudicating the leviability of Rs. 16,300/- for 163 days as directed by the Bench. A further ground sought levy of costs on the CIT(A) for non-application of the earlier ITAT direction.

3. Deputy Collector Office, Udgir vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, TDS

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Date: 4 July 2022
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 273B
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 319/PUN/2019) was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, arising from the Assessing Officer's order under Section 272A(2)(k) dated 26.11.2018. The sole issue was the levy of penalty for delay in filing quarterly statements of tax deducted at source. The Assessing Officer had levied the penalty vide order dated 05/02/2014 for delay in filing such quarterly statements, and the source preview confirms there was no dispute on the fact of delay in filing the quarterly statements.

4. Principal Maulana Azad Inter College vs Joint CIT(TDS), Allahabad

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Allahabad
Date: 10 December 2020
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Five appeals (ITA Nos. 379 to 383/ALLD/2018) for Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2012-13 were filed against five separate orders of CIT(A) all dated 21.12.2017, arising from penalty orders under Section 272A(2)(k). The appeals carried a delay of 271 days in filing before the ITAT, and condonation applications supported by an affidavit of the assessee were filed. The assessee's authorised representative submitted that the CIT(A) order was received on 17th January 2018, but due to board examinations scheduled in the premises of the school in February 2018, the entire office record was shifted out and stored separately, which contributed to the delay in filing.

5. M/S Ideb Projects Private Limited vs Jcit, Bangalore

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
Date: 10 September 2020
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals (ITA No. 43 & 44/Bang/2016) for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2012-13 were directed against two orders of CIT(A) both dated 5.11.2015, and were heard together and disposed of by a consolidated order. The solitary issue raised was whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the penalty imposed under Section 272A(2)(k). The source preview states that the assessee had deducted tax at source for the relevant assessment years but there was a delay in furnishing quarterly returns/statements; the full substantive findings are not disclosed in the available source preview.

6. Smv Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Addl. CIT, New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 22 April 2019
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 1955/Del/2015) for Assessment Year 2006-07 was directed against the order of CIT(A)-41, New Delhi dated 14th January 2015, and the sole ground was against the levy of penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) amounting to Rs. 21,400/-. The ITAT found the issue to be squarely covered by the decision in the assessee's own case in ITA No. 1956/Del/2015, wherein the ITAT had cancelled the penalty, noting that the CIT(A) in that parallel matter had acknowledged that e-TDS return filing was introduced in financial year 2005-06 and there was a transitional period during which the new system was being adopted.

7. M/S Bnk Investments, Chandigarh vs Jcit (TDS), Chandigarh

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Date: 4 April 2019
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Two appeals (ITA No. 1385/CHD/2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12 and ITA No. 1386/CHD/2018 for Assessment Year 2012-13) were filed by two different assessees — M/s BNK Investments and M/s Hair Code — against separate orders of even date 29.08.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chandigarh. The issue involved in both appeals was identical, being the penalty levied under Section 272A(2)(k); the appeals were taken up together given the common question, and the full substantive reasoning is not disclosed in the available source preview.

8. Icfs Private Limited (Formerly Know As) vs Additional Commissioner Of Income

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 13 March 2019
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 4807/Mum/2017) for Assessment Year 2009-10 was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-59, Mumbai dated 25.04.2017. The assessee raised the contention that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(k) begins to run only after TDS has been paid, on the basis that it is only after payment of TDS that the assessee can file the return under Section 200(3), and that the CIT(A) erred in not applying this principle; the assessee relied upon the decision in Porwal Creative Vision P. Ltd. vs ACIT (TDS) in I.T.A. Nos. 5556 & 5557/Mum/2009 in support of this position.

9. M/S Delhi Development Authority Common vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, New

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 22 June 2018
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 3407/Del/2015) for Assessment Year 2011-12 was filed against the order of CIT(A)-41, New Delhi dated 04.03.2015. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer erred in imposing a penalty of Rs. 96,400/- for delay in filing e-TDS returns without considering genuine reasons for the delay, specifically that the quarterly returns of 24Q (Q2) and 26Q (Q2) with due dates of 15.10.2010 were submitted on 03.05.2011 and 31.05.2012 respectively, as the Delhi Development Authority had been assigned the task of organising the Commonwealth Games 2010, which the assessee described as a prestigious and challenging assignment that resulted in the delayed filing.

10. Raviraj Relampaddu, Navi Mumbai vs DCIT 23(1), Mumbai

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 11 May 2018
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (ITA Nos. 2916 to 2918/Mum/2016) for Assessment Year 2010-11 were filed against the order of CIT(A)-1, Thane, in the matter of orders passed under Section 272A(2)(k). The source preview sets out a tabular summary of the delayed TDS filings: four quarters of Form 26Q for financial year 2009-10 were filed on 14.07.2011, with delays ranging from 394 to 729 days across the four quarters, involving tax deducted amounts of Rs. 61,562/-, Rs. 46,861/-, Rs. 36,449/-, and Rs. 73,919/- respectively, with total maximum penalty leviable stated as Rs. 1,84,272/-.

11. ITO, New Delhi vs M/S. Nayef Estate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Date: 28 February 2018
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 723/Del/2015) for Assessment Year 2008-09 was filed by the Revenue — the Income Tax Officer — against the order dated 14/11/2014 passed by CIT(A)-12, New Delhi, which had deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A(2)(k). The Department's ground was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the said penalty, and the source preview notes that a separate departmental appeal against a quantum order under the Act was also pending before the ITAT. The Assessing Officer had originally passed the order under Section 272A(2)(k) on the basis that the assessee had failed to comply with the relevant provisions.

12. Visa Chemical Industries, Thane vs Addl CIT TDS Rg, Thane

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Date: 26 May 2017
Sections engaged: 272A(2)(k), 200(3)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The appeal (ITA No. 4177/Mum/2016) for Assessment Year 2009-10 arose from the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 21-03-2016. The penalty was originally levied by the ACIT, TDS Range, Thane vide order dated 03-05-2013 under Section 272A(2)(k) for late submission of TDS statements, and the CIT(A) confirmed the levy. The sole issue was the penalty of Rs. 71,663/- confirmed by the CIT(A); the source preview states that the delay in filing TDS statements arose because the assessee did not have the PAN of the deductees, and the quarterly statements were filed under Section 200(3) read with Rule 31 of the IT Rules, 1962.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Delay in TDS quarterly statement filing is the universal trigger. Across all twelve rulings, the Section 272A(2)(k) penalty arose from a common factual matrix: the assessee had deducted TDS but submitted the quarterly statement under Section 200(3) after the prescribed due date. The quantum of delay, and the reasons offered for it, varied across cases, but the underlying default was consistent.
Government bodies and institutional deductors feature prominently. Several appeals were filed by entities such as a Garrison Engineer of the Air Force, a Deputy Collector's Office, a government-aided inter college, and the Delhi Development Authority. This suggests that government and quasi-government deductors are frequent litigants in Section 272A(2)(k) matters, often citing administrative or operational constraints as reasons for delay.
Condonation of delay and procedural threshold issues appear alongside the substantive penalty challenge. In the Principal Maulana Azad Inter College matter, a 271-day delay in filing the ITAT appeals itself had to be addressed through a condonation application before the substantive penalty issue could be reached, illustrating that Section 272A(2)(k) litigation frequently involves multiple procedural layers.
The introduction of e-TDS filing obligations generated a distinct category of disputes. In the SMV Agencies matter, the ITAT noted that the assessee's own parallel appeal had been decided in its favour with the observation that e-TDS return filing was introduced in financial year 2005-06 and that there was a transitional period; this reflects a recurring litigation pattern from the early years of the mandatory electronic filing regime.
Missing deductee PAN and operational disruptions appear as recurring cause-of-delay arguments. The Visa Chemical Industries ruling cites absence of deductee PAN as the reason for delay, while the Delhi Development Authority matter cites organisational responsibilities related to the Commonwealth Games 2010. These recurring factual defences point to the significance of the reasonable-cause inquiry — relevant to Section 273B — in such proceedings, though the substantive findings in these matters are not fully disclosed in the available source previews.

How to use this compilation

This compilation is intended as a first-pass research tool to identify relevant ITAT rulings on Section 272A(2)(k) and to understand the range of procedural and factual contexts in which such penalties have been litigated. Researchers should use the case identifiers — ITA numbers, bench names, and dates — provided in each entry to locate and retrieve the full text of the original judgment from indiankanoon.org, the official ITAT website, or commercial databases before drawing any conclusion about the legal position in a particular ruling. The source previews excerpted here are necessarily partial and do not capture the full reasoning, findings, or operative orders of the tribunals.

When using this index for brief preparation or advisory work, researchers should verify whether any of the rulings listed here have subsequently been appealed to the relevant High Court or the Supreme Court, whether any stay has been granted against a ruling, and whether the ruling has been cited with approval, distinguished, or overruled in later decisions. The outcomes across these twelve cases are marked as "Outcome not specified in source" because the full dispositive portion of the orders was not available in the structured corpus at the time of compilation; the full judgment text must be consulted to determine whether the penalty was upheld, reduced, or deleted in each instance.

Researchers should also cross-reference relevant CBDT circulars, notifications, and instructions on TDS compliance timelines, as administrative directions issued from time to time may be relevant to the assessment of reasonable cause or to penalty quantification in matters under Section 272A(2)(k). The statutory cap tying the penalty to the amount of tax deductible is a fixed legal parameter that should be verified against the facts of each case independently.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 272A(2)(k) TDS Penalty: 12 ITAT Rulings on Late Filing