← All Phrases

“Section 201(3)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 201Section 201(3)(i)34 judgments

DCIT, LAXMINAGAR vs. TURNER GENERAL ENTERTAINMENT NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MAHIPALPUR DELHI

In the result, assessee's appeal is partly

ITA 473/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. M. Balaganesh & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Vs Turner General Laxmi Nagar Entertainment Net Works New Delhi India Limited Mahipalpur Delhi Tan No. Deln08096E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 271CSection 3

limit. 9. The Ld AR has submitted that the order passed by the AO was time barred by limitation. He has submitted that section 201(3) of the Act provides the time limit within which an order u/s 201(1) of the Act can be made. He has also submitted ... reads as under :- Section 201 of the Act provides for consequences of failure to deduct or pay taxes at source. Section 201(3) of the Act provides for time limit within which an order under Section 201(1) of the act can be made. Section 201(3) and Section 201

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,AMBALA vs. ITO TDS, KARNAL

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2117/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi06 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14 Punjab National Bank Vs. Ito Ambala, Haryana -134003 Tds Pan No.Aaacp01656G Karnal (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Lalit Garg, Fca Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2023 Order Per N. K. Billaiya, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Dated 26.05.2023 By Nfac, Delhi Pertaining To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grievance Of The Assessee Read As Under :- 1. That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Tds) Under Section 250 Of The Act Is Bad, Both In The Eye Of Law & On Facts As It Is Time Barred As Per Limitation Given Under Section 201(3).

Section 2Section 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 250

both in the eye of law and on facts as it is time barred as per limitation given under section 201(3). 2. The learned A.O has erred on law and facts by passing order in haste without giving any opportunity of being heard and is against the principle ... fact that proceedings for F.Y. 2007-08 and 2008-09 had become time barred and/or for the aforesaid financial years, limitation under section 201(3)(i) of the Act had already expired on 31/3/2011 and 31/3/2012, respectively, much prior to the amendment in section 201 as amended by Finance

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCEL-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 392/NAG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCEL-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 391/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 389/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRICLE-51(10, NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 388/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 387/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCEL-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 386/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 366/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 365/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 364/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 363/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 362/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 361/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 360/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

Appeals are partly allowed/allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 359/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya, Sr. DR
Section 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

392/NAG./2022 that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from the end of the relevant ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 277/NAG/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Aug 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2012-13 Bank Of India, Dcit (Tds), Hingna Branch, Nagpur Zonal Office, Vs. Circle-1, 3Rd Floor, Csd Dept., Kingsways, Nagpur Nagpur – 440 001, Maharashtra Pan : Aaacb0472C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 194ASection 200Section 201Section 201(1)Section 201(3)Section 201(3)(i)Section 250

claim of the assessee is that the order passed by the AO was time barred in view of the provisions contained in section 201(3)(i) as per which if the statement is filed, then the time limit for passing of the order would be two years from ... contra, the ld. DR contended that the time limit for the year under consideration would be governed by the amendment made to section 201(3) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f. 01-10-2014. 7. Section 201(3), prior to its substitution by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014 w.e.f

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONE OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 337/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

echo the assessee’s contention that the orders passed by the AO were time barred, which has been challenged before the Tribunal. 7. Section 201(3) deals with the time limit for passing of the order under section 201. The relevant part of section 201(3), prior to its substitution ... customers which ought to have been included, it will be a case of non-filing of the statements and hence governed by section 201(3)(ii) of the Act. The sequitur of his conclusion is that the bank should file individual client-wise statement and if there is something amiss

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 272/NAG/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

echo the assessee’s contention that the orders passed by the AO were time barred, which has been challenged before the Tribunal. 7. Section 201(3) deals with the time limit for passing of the order under section 201. The relevant part of section 201(3), prior to its substitution ... customers which ought to have been included, it will be a case of non-filing of the statements and hence governed by section 201(3)(ii) of the Act. The sequitur of his conclusion is that the bank should file individual client-wise statement and if there is something amiss

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 271/NAG/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Aug 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik Sadrani &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 250

echo the assessee’s contention that the orders passed by the AO were time barred, which has been challenged before the Tribunal. 7. Section 201(3) deals with the time limit for passing of the order under section 201. The relevant part of section 201(3), prior to its substitution ... customers which ought to have been included, it will be a case of non-filing of the statements and hence governed by section 201(3)(ii) of the Act. The sequitur of his conclusion is that the bank should file individual client-wise statement and if there is something amiss

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2