← All Phrases

“Section 200(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 200Section 200(3)818 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 200(3) is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 200(3)

Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI
73 Taxmann.com 252 · 2016 · High Court
1,778
citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.

Kourani v. Union OF India
83 Taxmann.com 137 · 2017 · High Court
1,708
citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.

Fateh Raj Singhvi & Ors. v. UOI
289 CTR 602 · 2016 · High Court
844
citing judgments

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.

Rashmikant Kundalia v. Union of India
54 Taxmann.com 200 · 2015 · High Court
702
citing judgments

Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.

Dundlod Shikshan Sansthan v. Union of India
63 Taxmann.com 243 · 2015 · High Court
397
citing judgments

The imposition of fees for late filing of TDS/TCS returns prior to the Finance Act, 2015 amendments was not illegal, and the Rajasthan High Court found no justification to interfere with such compensatory fees.

CIT v. Amitabh Bachchan
384 ITR 200 · 2016 · Supreme Court
264
citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional power under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act is not limited to the points specified in the show-cause notice, nor is the exercise of this power contingent upon issuing a show-cause notice.

137 (Guj.) IV. Qatalys Software Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. UOI
115 Taxmann.com 345 · 2020 · High Court
178
citing judgments

The Madras High Court has upheld the validity of the levy of fees under Section 234E and penalties under Section 271H, finding the charging provision to be Section 234E, with the power to levy existing from 01/07/2012.

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT
23 Taxmann.com 265 · 2012 · High Court
147
citing judgments

The rule of consistency does not override the correct application of law and should not be applied if it leads to an anomalous outcome.

Judgments citing Section 200(3)

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1289/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q2 (FORM 24Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1288/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q3 (FORM 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1287/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q3 (FORM 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON

Dadasaheb Vitthalrao Urhe, Pune vs. ITO, TDS Pune, Pune

ITA 1286/PUN/2023[2013-14 Q2(FORM 26Q)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Feb 2024

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No. 1286 To 1309/Pun/2023 / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Dadasaheb Vittalrao Urhe 5, Abhijeet Engineers, Panchwati Colony, Talegaon Dabhade, Pune-410506 Pan:Aaapu9881D . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds, Pune. . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/02/2024 आदेश / Order Per Bench; The Present Bunch Of Twenty Four Appeals Of The Assessee Are Assailed Against Respective Orders Of First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short ‘Nfac’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short ‘The Act’], Which Ascended Out Of Respective Orders Of Intimation/Rectification Processed By The Cit/Cpc-Tds, Pune [For Short ‘Ao’] For Various Quarters Pertaining To The Assessment Years [For Short ‘Ay’] 2013-14 To 2015-16. 2. Since The Facts & Solitary Issue Involved In This Bunch Of Appeals Are Identical, On The Request Of Rival Parties, For The Sake Of Brevity These Are Heard Together For A Common & Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Mr Rohit Tapadiya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200A(1)(c)Section 234ESection 250

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON

M/S Ceecon Readymix Concrete Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO TDS Range, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1014/COCH/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 156Section 192Section 194JSection 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

M/S Ceecon Readymix Concrete Pvt Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO TDS Range, Thrissur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed on the afore-said terms

ITA 1013/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Das

For Appellant: Ms. Divya Ravindran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR
Section 154Section 156Section 192Section 194JSection 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Yashashree Builders and Developers, Pune vs. Income Tax E Assessment, Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 997/PUN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.997/Pun/2023 Assessment Year 2014-15 Yashashree Builders & Developers, Vs. Ito, Tds-3, Swami Suryakiran Society, Pune S.No.16/16, Vishal Nagar, Pimple Nilakh, Pune 411027 Maharashtra Pan : Aabyf1726C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 246Section 250

stated that the appellant had failed to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act and made liable for late fees. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned

Techmobia Digital Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-76(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1853/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 194ISection 200(3)Section 201Section 23Section 234ESection 246

said statement as the same was filed alongwith the tax deposited. He submitted that, from the plain reading of section 234E, section 200(3) r.w. Rule-31A (4A), fee u/s 234E is leviable only when the statement is not filed as prescribed u/s 200(3), which in turn provides ... albeit on 5.4.2014 and on the same date, statement has also been filed. The relevant 6 Techmobia Digital Solutions Pvt. Ltd. provision of section 200(3) read with rule 31A (4A) only refers to filing of ‘challan cum statement’ after the tax has been paid. The word “challan

M/S. Child Development Project Officer, Shivamogga vs. Income-Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Davangere

The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent

ITA 882/BANG/2023[26Q/Quarter-4/2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri George George Kshri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Pai, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Nischal B, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 250

decision of jurisdictional High Court in the cases cite supra. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the same as under:- ‘As per section 200(3) read with rule 31A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 a tax deductor is required to file quarterly statement of such taxes deducted ... financial year; and (iv) 31st March - 15th May of the following financial year.[Para 8] It may be recorded that section 200(3) requiring to file formal TDS statement within the aforesaid each quarter was inserted on 1-4-2005 and at the relevant point of time, section 272A

Sushil Kumar Marlecha, Pali vs. Deputy/Asstt, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1, Ghaziabad / Jodhpur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 123/JODH/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 205CSection 206CSection 234E

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM ITA

Block Resources Centre Rajiv Gsandhi Siksha Mission, Dhamdha vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Bhilai

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 4

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "ाियक सद", एवं

Block Resources Coordinator Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Bhilai

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/RPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 4

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "ाियक सद", एवं

Block Resources Coordinator Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Patan vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Bhilai

In the result, grounds raised in all these three appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.33, 34 & 35/Rpr/2020 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 V. Block Resources Coordinator Ito (Tds) Rajiv Gandhi Siksha Mission, Block Bhilai Patan, Bathena Road, Patan Dist. Durg – 491 111 Chhattisgarh

For Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma
Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206ASection 272A(2)(k)Section 4

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH: RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद , "ाियक सद", एवं

Administrative Officer, Customs & Central Excise, Jabalpur vs. ITO (TDS)-2, Jabalpur

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

ITA 4/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Shidharth Seth.Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.RajeshKumarGupta.Sr.DR
Section 154Section 156Section 190Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 203ASection 204Section 234ESection 285

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB”BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 60/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 59/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 58/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 57/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 56/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion

Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Ltd, Belgaum vs. DCIT, TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 55/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q4]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

case of Fatheraj Singhvi (supra) are extracted hereunder :- “19. Hence, it can be said that, the mechanism provided for enforceability of Section 200(3) or 206C (3) for filing of the statement by making it penal under Section 272A (2) (k) is done away in view of the insertion