“Section 220(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 220Section 220(2)801 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 220(2) is Fatehraj Singhvi v. UOI (73 Taxmann.com 252), cited in 1,778 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 220(2)

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.

Olari Little Flower Kuries (P.) Ltd. v. UOI

440 ITR 26 · 2022 · High Court

614

citing judgments

The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.

Gajanan Constructions v. DCIT

74 Taxmann.com 6 · 2016 · ITAT

465

citing judgments

Late fees under section 234E can only be levied prospectively from June 1, 2015. Levying late fees for periods prior to this date is not permissible.

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.

Jiji Varghese v. ITO(TDS) & Ors.

443 ITR 267 · 2022 · High Court

220

citing judgments

Section 234E fee cannot be imposed for periods prior to June 1, 2015. This applies even when the processing of the return under Section 200A(c) occurred before that date.

Judgments citing Section 220(2)

Panasonic Life Solutions India Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. Asst CIT CC 7(2), Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7861/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Panasonic Life Solutions India Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income-Tax (Formerly Known As Anchor Central Circle 7(2) Electricals Private Limited) 3Rd Floor, B Wing, 655, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Vs. I – Think Techno Campus, M.K. Road, Pokhran Road No.2, Thane Mumbai-400 020 (West) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaeca2190C Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08-12-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2023

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 153Section 80ISection 92C

that notice, the assessee was also directed to pay the same within 30 days, further on failure to pay the interest under Section 220(2) of the Act as well as imposition of penalty under Section 221 of the Act was to be initiated. As per paragraph no.6, the assessee

Continental Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3662/DEL/2017[1983-84]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 1983-84

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 1983-84 Continental Constructions Acit Ltd., 28, Nehru Place Circle – 4 (2) New Delhi-110019 Vs. New Delhi Pan No.Aaacc2309R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate Respondent By Sh. T. James Singson, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 28-02-2017 Pertaining To A.Y.1983- 84. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. On Facts & Circumstances & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Have Erred & Were Not Justified In Charging Of Interest U/S 220(2) In Respect Of The Impugned Amount Of Rs 14,15,99,180/- (Which Was Determined By Order U/S 220(7) Dated 05/01/2001) For Any Period Prior To The Date Of Revocation Of The Said Order U/S 220(7) I.E 12/06/2007. 2. Learned Assessing Officer Has Failed To Appreciate The Law That Interest U/S 220(2) Is Chargeable Only When There Is An Un-Discharged Demand Notice, Which In The Case Of Appellant Could Be Said To Have Arisen Only On 12/06/2007, Consequent To The Order Of Revocation & Thus Interest Should Have Been Chargeable Only On Default Of Payment Of Demand Stated In The Notice U/S 156 Dated 12/06/2007. 3. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Officer & Cit(A) Have Failed To Correctly Appreciate The Ratio Of The Judgement Of The Apex Court In The Case Of Vikrant Tyres Ltd Reported In 247 Itr 821 (Sc)

Section 154Section 156Section 220Section 220(2)Section 220(7)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

Income Tax Officer-12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ankita Reality and Development Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2212/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ito-12(1)(1) बिधम/ Ankita Reality & Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Road, Mumbai-400020. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai- 400104. Cross Objection No. 106/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2212/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Ankita Reality & बिधम/ Ito-12(1)(1) Room No.129 1St Floor, Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cts-40-44, Sahara India Aayakar Bhavan, M. H. Points, Sv Road, Goregaon Road, Mumbai-400020. West, Mumbai-400104. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaeca4513D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. Ekta Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue & The Cross- Objection (Co) Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 19.04.2023 For The Ay 2015-16. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) & Pointed Out That Assessee Had Not 2 Co. No.106/M/23 A.Y. 2015-16 Ankita Reality & Development Pvt. Ltd. Filed The Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Act. & The Cross- Objection (Co) Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Supporting The Action Of The Ld Cit(A), As Well As Has Raised Certain Legal Issues.

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Srivastave/Ms. EktaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM

Shri Shitalbhai Rasiklal Ravani, Rajkot vs. The ITO(TDS)-2, Rajkot

Accordingly, in our considered view, the present appeal is not maintainable and hence the present appeal is being dismissed as non- maintainable

ITA 21/RJT/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR

Section 119(2)(a)Section 194Section 194lSection 201Section 201(1)Section 220

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT

Governament Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 150/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.149/Viz/2023 & 150/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16) Government Polytechnic Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Government Polytechnic College Ward-1 Kancharapalem Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaagg1122Q] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम “एसएमसी”पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM “SMC” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी

Governament Polytechnic, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 149/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam27 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 154Section 200ASection 234ESection 246

Bhagwati Lal Madrecha, Rajsamand vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rajsamand

ITA 203/JODH/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Sept 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Hearing.”

Section 140ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 156Section 220(2)Section 244Section 244(1)Section 244(1)(aa)

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

Shiv Kripa Hotels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. The DCIT, Circle-3

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 443/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

amount equivalent to TDS along with a penal interest under section 13 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40a(ia). Recommendation. Section 40a(ia) should drawn/deleted and/or bring suitable amendments

ACIT Central Circle-II, Noida vs. Samtel Machine & Projects (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1224/DEL/2022[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 140ASection 140A(1)Section 154Section 156Section 220(2)Section 234BSection 244A

where Revenue has to pay interest on refund, but is equally applied when an assessee is in default and interest is payable under Section 220(2) of the Act. Interest payable under Section 234B and 234C become part of the demand notice issued under Section ... this amount, i.e., the tax payable plus interest payable under Sections 234B and 234C that interest under Section 220(2) is calculated from the date mentioned in the notice of demand till the date of actual payment. Under Explanation to Section 140A(1), it is stipulated where the amount paid

JCIT (OSD) Circle-77(1), New Delhi vs. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1336/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Alok Basant, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT-DR

Section 154Section 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 4

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Software Technology Parks of India, New Delhi vs. ACIT, CPC TDS, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1118/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Atul Ninawat, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 200ASection 201Section 220(2)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. C. M. Garg, Judicial Member Dr. B