Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT

161 ITD 313Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2016#705 most cited

What is Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT authority for?

Fee under section 234E cannot be charged for the period prior to 01.06.2015, as the power to charge such fee was vested with the prescribed authority only upon substitution of clause (c) to section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015, effective from that date.

143

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Gajanan Constructions · Dy CIT · 161 ITD 313 · section 234E · section 200A · late fee · TDS statement · prior to 01.06.2015 · Finance Act 2015 · retrospective effect

Sections most often in play

Section 154Section 194IASection 200ASection 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 234ESection 271H(3)Section 272A(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 271h(3)section 272a(2)section 200a(1)(c)rectification under section 154section 200a(1)section 272asection 200(3)section 220(2)section 200asection 234esection 200tax deducted at source

Judgments citing Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 336/CHNY/2023[2014-15(24Q-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfillimited, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, Gaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 335/CHNY/2023[2014-15(24Q-Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 334/CHNY/2023[2014-15(24Q-Q1)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 333/CHNY/2023[2013-14(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 332/CHNY/2023[2013-14(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 331/CHNY/2023[2013-14(26Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 330/CHNY/2023[2013-14(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 329/CHNY/2023[2013-14(24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

M/S Cigfil Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT, CPC, -TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 328/CHNY/2023[2013-14 (24Q-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2023

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

Section 234E

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

The Congregation of the Sisters of the Cross of Chavanod, Trichy vs. CIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

ITA 807/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT)-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)Section 234ESection 272A(2)(k)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1479/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1476/Mum/2022 to 1479/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year :2013-14) Shri Vivek J Thar, Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer TDS and Son of Late Shri Jayesh Ward, Kalyan Thar 602, A-Wing, Kaledonia Building, Sahar Road Near Railway Station Andheri (W) Mumbai- 400 069 PAN/GIR No.ABYPT2148R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ankur Shah Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelke Date of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):…

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1478/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1476/Mum/2022 to 1479/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year :2013-14) Shri Vivek J Thar, Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer TDS and Son of Late Shri Jayesh Ward, Kalyan Thar 602, A-Wing, Kaledonia Building, Sahar Road Near Railway Station Andheri (W) Mumbai- 400 069 PAN/GIR No.ABYPT2148R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ankur Shah Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelke Date of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):…

Late Shri Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1477/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1476/Mum/2022 to 1479/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year :2013-14) Shri Vivek J Thar, Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer TDS and Son of Late Shri Jayesh Ward, Kalyan Thar 602, A-Wing, Kaledonia Building, Sahar Road Near Railway Station Andheri (W) Mumbai- 400 069 PAN/GIR No.ABYPT2148R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ankur Shah Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelke Date of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):…

Late Shri Jayeesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1476/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014
Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1476/Mum/2022 to 1479/Mum/2022 (Assessment Year :2013-14) Shri Vivek J Thar, Legal Heir Vs. Income Tax Officer TDS and Son of Late Shri Jayesh Ward, Kalyan Thar 602, A-Wing, Kaledonia Building, Sahar Road Near Railway Station Andheri (W) Mumbai- 400 069 PAN/GIR No.ABYPT2148R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Ankur Shah Revenue by Shri Ratnakar Shelke Date of Hearing 07/09/2022 Date of Pronouncement 19/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):…

Kerman Monocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 66/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of FatherajSinghvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the…

Kerman Monocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 65/SRT/2020[2014-15 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of FatherajSinghvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that the…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 64/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 4]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 63/SRT/2020[215-16 QUARTER 3]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 62/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 2]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

Ranjitbhai Ambubhai Patel, Bilimora vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, Banglore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 61/SRT/2020[2015-16 QUARTER 1]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Aug 2022

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

…be under section 200A of the Act, in which, he had adjusted a sum of Rs.33,123/- by way of late filing fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel relied on a decision of Pune Bench of ITAT in case of Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 380/161 ITD 313 (Pune - Trib.), in which, the Tribunal held that prior to 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was not empowered to charge fee under section 234E of the Act. Counsel also relied on a decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in case of Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252, in which, the Court has taken a view that th…

Gajanan Constructions v. Dy, CIT (161 ITD 313) — Cited in 143 Judgments | BharatTax