Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI

289 CTR 602High Court2016#58 most cited

What is Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI authority for?

A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.

844

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 381,123 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Fateh Raj Singhvi · Section 234E · Section 200A · late filing fee TDS · fee prior to 01.06.2015 · processing of TDS statement · intimation Section 200A(1)(c) · retrospective levy 234E

Sections most often in play

Section 234ESection 200ASection 154Section 250Section 220(2)Section 156Section 201(1)Section 200(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 200a(1)(c)section 200a(1)section 200(3)section 234esection 200asection 200section 206csection 206section 220(2)section 20tax deducted at sourcedelay in filing appeal

Judgments citing Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI

Drg Rexime Inc, Tirupur vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

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

ITA 351/CHNY/2021[2015-16[Form-26Q-Q-3]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.351/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 [26Q – Q3] M/S. Drg Rexine Inc, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 16/25 (Old Name Sri Drg Agencies), Income Tax, Kamaraj Road, Thennampalayam Central Processing Cell – Tds, Exctension, Tirupur 641 604, Ghaziabad. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Abhfs4221K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per G. Manjunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 27.08.2021 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16 [26Q-Q-3].

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 350/CHNY/2021[2014-15[Form-26Q-Q-4]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 349/CHNY/2021[2014-15[Form-26Q-Q-3]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 348/CHNY/2021[2014-15[Form-26Q-Q-2]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 347/CHNY/2021[2014-15[Form-26Q-Q-1]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 346/CHNY/2021[2014-15[Form-24Q-Q-4]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Gobichettipalayam vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 345/CHNY/2021[2014-15[Form-24Q-Q-3]]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles(P) Ltd, Getticheviur vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 344/CHNY/2021[2014-15(form-24Q-Q-2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Gobichettypalayam vs. CIT(A)NFAC, Delhi

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 343/CHNY/2021[2014-15(Q-1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.343 To 350/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 [24Q - Q1 To Q4 & 26Q – Q1 To Q4] M/S. Marshal Textiles (P) Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Pallipalayam, Kunnathur, Gobi Main Income Tax, Road, Getticheviur Post, Central Processing Cell – Tds, Gobichettipalayam 638 110. Ghaziabad. [Pan:Aabcm6646C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, Erode ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench: The Bunch Of 8 Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 29.07.2021 Pertain To Assessment Years 2014-15 (24Q - Q1 To Q4] & Dated 13.08.2021 For 26Q - Q1 To Q4). Since, The Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate, ErodeFor Respondent: Shri AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 200ASection 234E

…and rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of th…

C.K.Airtech India Pvt Ltd, Hosur vs. ITO, TDS, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 286/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.284-286/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 M/S. C.K. Airtech India Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- D-7, Vi Phase, Sidco Industrial Of Income Tax, Estate, Circle-1, Hosur – 635 126. Hosur [Pan: Aabcc 2664 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T. Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 200ASection 234E

…nd rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of…

C.K.Airtech Pvt Ltd, Hosur vs. ITO, TDS, Circle-1, Hosur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 285/CHNY/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.284-286/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 M/S. C.K. Airtech India Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- D-7, Vi Phase, Sidco Industrial Of Income Tax, Estate, Circle-1, Hosur – 635 126. Hosur [Pan: Aabcc 2664 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T. Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 200ASection 234E

…nd rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of…

C.K.Airtech India Pvt Ltd, Hosur vs. ITO, TDS, Circle-I, Hosur

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 284/CHNY/2021[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.284-286/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 M/S. C.K. Airtech India Pvt. Ltd., V. The Asst. Commissioner- D-7, Vi Phase, Sidco Industrial Of Income Tax, Estate, Circle-1, Hosur – 635 126. Hosur [Pan: Aabcc 2664 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.T. Vasudevan, Adv. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 200ASection 234E

…nd rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of…

Sree Drg Vinyls Industries, Tirupur vs. ACIT-CPC, TDS

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

ITA 245/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.245/Chny/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Sree Drg Vinyls Industries, V. The Dy. Commissioner- 16/2, Kamaraj Road, Cross Street, Of Income Tax, Thennampalyam Extension, Central Processing Cell-Tds, Tirupur-641 604, Tamil Nadu. Ghaziabad. [Pan: Abrfs 0294 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S. Sridhar, Adv., Erode ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr. Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2022

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan
Section 200ASection 234E

…nd rejected the arguments taken by the assessee and confirmed late fee levied under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, as per mandate of the statute. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka) had considered the issue and after analyzing the provisions of section 234E of the Act and section 200A of the Act and held that in the absence of enabling provision in section 200A of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot levy late fee under section 234E of the Act, while processing the quarterly TDS return filed for the period of…

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6076/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6075 & 6076/DEL/2018 [Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2010-11] Govt. Senior Secondary JCIT-TDS Range, School, Karnal Siwani Mandi, Vs Haryana PAN-RTKGO6436D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Nitesh Kumar Agarwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement .01.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 28…

Govt. Senior Secondary School, Bhiwani vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6075/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(K)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.6075 & 6076/DEL/2018 [Assessment Years: 2008-09 & 2010-11] Govt. Senior Secondary JCIT-TDS Range, School, Karnal Siwani Mandi, Vs Haryana PAN-RTKGO6436D Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Nitesh Kumar Agarwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.11.2021 Date of Pronouncement .01.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 28…

Samrat Granites Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 528/BANG/2021[2015-16 (26Q-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

…upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015; 6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka); 7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor; 8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such late fee as the…

Samrat Granites Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 527/BANG/2021[2014-15 (26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

…upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015; 6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka); 7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor; 8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such late fee as the…

Samrat Granites Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 526/BANG/2021[2014-15 (26Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

…upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015; 6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka); 7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor; 8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such late fee as the…

Samrat Granites Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 525/BANG/2021[2014-15 (24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

…upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015; 6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka); 7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor; 8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such late fee as the…

Samrat Granites Private Limted, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC (TDS), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 524/BANG/2021[2014-15 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2021

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Siddesh Nagaraj GaddiFor Respondent: Sri.Sankar Ganesh K, JCIT-DR
Section 200ASection 234Section 234ESection 250

…upholding levy of late fee for the period prior to 01.06.2015; 6. The Learned CIT{A) has erred in upholding levy of late fee without there being any authority as ruled by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016j 289 CTR 602 (Karnataka); 7. The levy of fee is unjust considering the discrimination in the time period allowed to file quarterly TDS statements of government dedicators and non-government dedutor; 8. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the AO has erred in not giving reasonable opportunity of being heard before imposing such late fee as the…