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 366,464 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

Evergreen Harvest Agro Products Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward-1(2), Chennai

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 189/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Sriraj Gokavarapur (ACA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)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…

Evergreen Harvest Agro Products Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward -1(2), Chennai

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 188/CHNY/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Sriraj Gokavarapur (ACA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)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…

Evergreen Harvest Agro Products Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward -1(2), Chennai

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 187/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Sriraj Gokavarapur (ACA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)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…

Evergreen Harvest Agro Products Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward -1(2), Chennai

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 186/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Sriraj Gokavarapur (ACA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)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…

Evergreen Harvest Agro Products Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ITO, TDS Ward 1(2), Chennai

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 185/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Sriraj Gokavarapur (ACA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)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…

Veera Creations, Tirupur vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Tirupur

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

ITA 559/CHNY/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 May 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Kumar (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 206C(3)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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 422/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 421/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 419/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 418/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 416/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Bhaskar Roy, Kolkata vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

ITA 415/KOL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

Section 200Section 200ASection 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…

Lawmen Concepts Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS, Mumbai

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

ITA 5140/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Michael Jerald-Sr.DR
Section 200ASection 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…

National Laminate Corporation, Mumbai vs. CPC (TDS), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 4902/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik – Ld. DR
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)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 Good Health Food Pvt., Ltd., Ranchi vs. ACIT, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 259/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 200ASection 234ESection 243E

…DCIT (TDS)' ITA No.442/Agr/2017. iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws. 8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) w…

M/S Good Health Food Pvt., Ltd., Ranchi vs. ACIT, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 258/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 200ASection 234ESection 243E

…DCIT (TDS)' ITA No.442/Agr/2017. iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws. 8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) w…

M/S Good Health Food Pvt., Ltd., Ranchi vs. ACIT, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 257/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 200ASection 234ESection 243E

…DCIT (TDS)' ITA No.442/Agr/2017. iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws. 8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) w…

M/S Good Health Food Pvt., Ltd., Ranchi vs. ACIT, Centralised Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 256/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 200ASection 234ESection 243E

…DCIT (TDS)' ITA No.442/Agr/2017. iii) Fatehraj Singhvi Vs. UDI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (Karn) (HC) iv) Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DOT (TDS) ITA No.90/Asr/2015. v) Shri Kaur Chand Jain vs. DCIT', ITA No.378/ASR/2015. vi) Gajanan Constructions vs. DCIT' (2016) 161 ITD 313 (Pune). 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order with the support of a brief synopsis of case laws. 8. Heard the rival contention and perused the material relevant. We find that while deciding the issue against the appellant assessee the Ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on Rajesh Kaurani vs. Union of India, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj.) w…