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 366,444 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

Kerman Minocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 40/SRT/2020[QUARTER-IV 2013-14]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 Minocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 39/SRT/2020[QUARTER-III 2013-14]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 Minocher Buhariwala, Na

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are dismissed

ITA 38/SRT/2020[QUARTER-II 2013-14]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…

Desai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Na

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

ITA 506/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
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…

Desai Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Na

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

ITA 505/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.B.G. Mahapatra, Sr.D.R
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…

M/S. Chem-Tech Laboratorise Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Pune

In the result, both appeals of the assessee i

ITA 485/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.485 & 486/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S.Chem-Tech Laboratories The Deputy Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Vs Of Income Tax, Cpc(Tds), S-22, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune. Pune-Satara Road, Pune-411009. Pan: Aaecc 3473 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai– Dr Date Of Hearing 22/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-10 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, Both Dated 04.03.2020. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.485/Pun/2020 For A.Y.2013-14 As Lead Case.

Section 200ASection 234E

…late fees u/s.234E, in the intimation u/s 200A, passed against the TDS statement filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was bad in law in view of the binding decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT Pune in the case of Gajanan Constructions &ors V/s DCIT ( 161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v/s. DCIT (ITA No.560/PN/2016) dated 21.09.2016 and hence , the late fees u/s.234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. ITA Nos.485 & 486/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 M/s.Chem-Tech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Pune (A) (02 Appeals) 4] The learned CIT(A) e…

M/S. Chem-Tech Laboratorise Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Pune

In the result, both appeals of the assessee i

ITA 486/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.485 & 486/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S.Chem-Tech Laboratories The Deputy Commissioner Pvt. Ltd., Vs Of Income Tax, Cpc(Tds), S-22, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune. Pune-Satara Road, Pune-411009. Pan: Aaecc 3473 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai– Dr Date Of Hearing 22/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-10 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively, Both Dated 04.03.2020. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both The Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Both The Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.485/Pun/2020 For A.Y.2013-14 As Lead Case.

Section 200ASection 234E

…late fees u/s.234E, in the intimation u/s 200A, passed against the TDS statement filed for the period prior to 01.06.2015 was bad in law in view of the binding decisions of Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT Pune in the case of Gajanan Constructions &ors V/s DCIT ( 161 ITD 313) dated 23.09.2016 and Maharashtra Cricket Association v/s. DCIT (ITA No.560/PN/2016) dated 21.09.2016 and hence , the late fees u/s.234E levied in the instant case ought to have been deleted. ITA Nos.485 & 486/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 M/s.Chem-Tech Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), Pune (A) (02 Appeals) 4] The learned CIT(A) e…

D. Senthamaraiselvi, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Gaziabad

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

ITA 406/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. 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…

D. Senthamaraiselvi, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Gaziabad

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

ITA 405/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. 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…

D S Hospital Private Liited, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 331/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. 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…

D S Hospital Private Liited, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 330/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. 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…

D S Hospital Private Liited, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 329/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. 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…

D. Senthamaraiselvi, Dindigul vs. DCIT, CPC, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 407/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) –Ld. 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…

M/S. Elkay Spirits Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 166/PUN/2020[2015-16 (27EQ-Q3) ]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…

M/S. Elkay Spirits Private Limited, Pune vs. Ssistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 164/PUN/2020[2015-16 (27EQ-Q1) ]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…

M/S. Elkay Spirits Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 162/PUN/2020[2014 15 (27EQ-Q3) ]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…

M/S. Elkay Spirits Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 158/PUN/2020[2013-14 (27EQ-Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…

M/S Elkay Spirits P Ltd., Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/PUN/2020[2013-14 (27EQ-Q2)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…

M/S. Elkay Spirits Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/PUN/2020[2015-16 (27EQ-Q4)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…

M/S. Elkay Spirits Private Limited, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 165/PUN/2020[2015-16 (27EQ-Q2) ]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Section 1Section 154Section 200ASection 234E

…On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the levy of late fee u/s 234E for period prior to 01/06/2015 was contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble ITA T, Pune in the case of Gajanan Construction & others in 161 ITD 313, in as much as the decision of Hon'ble ITAT is binding on the lower authorities as held by the Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V.H C Shrivatsava in 256 ITR 385 and therefore such levy of late fee in contradiction to law laid down by Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent from record. Elkay Spirits Pvt. Ltd…