ANUKOOL FURNITURE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CPC -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2015-16 Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Acit, B-12, Doctor House, Nr. Parimal Vs Cpc-Tds, Railway Crossing, Ellisbridge, Ghaziabad Ahmedabad-380006 Pan : Aabca 6053 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "त् यथ" "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2021 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/11/2021 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Rajpal Yadav: The Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short] Dated 25Th January 2019 Passed For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Solitary Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.74,000/- Which Was Imposed Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. With The Assistance Of The Learned Representatives, We Have Gone Through The Record Carefully. It Emerges Out From The Record That The Assessee Failed To Submit Its Tds Return Well In Time During The Accounting Period Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, A Penalty Under Section 234E Of The Act Amounting To Rs.74,000/- Was Imposed Upon The Assessee. Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Vs. Acit Ay : 2015-16 2

TDS return well in time during the accounting period relevant to the Assessment Year 2015-16. Therefore, a penalty under Section 234E of the Act amounting to Rs.74,000/- was imposed upon the assessee. Anukool Furniture Pvt Ltd Vs. ACIT AY : 2015-16 2 4. Dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before

BANK OF BARODA,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section

M/S. ORION STEEL CORPORATION,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,CPC-TDS, GHAZIYABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2432/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15(26Q, Q1)) M/S. Orion Steel Corporation The Acit बनाम/ Centralized Processing 58, Ajanta Station Road, Vs. Cell-Tax Deducted At Anand, Gujarat-388001 Source, Income Tax Office, Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziyabad, Uttar Pradesh-201010 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaafo3831D .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

2. The facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its TDS statement in Form No. 26Q for A.Y. 2014-15 (Quarter-1) which was processed under Section 200A

JYOTI LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. DCIT,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), , BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia& Ms. Madhumita Roy

TDS return was processed under section 200A, a short deduction demand was raised on the ground that the tax withholding rate was to apply @ 20%, in terms of the provisions of Section 206AA, as the German entity had not obtained the permanent account number (PAN) from the Indian tax authorities. The assessee objected to this treatment and filed a rectification

BHIKHABHAI HIRABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 04 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

2. As per main grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the applicability of Section 234E r.w.s. 204 of the Act whereby late filing fees of Rs.4,39,245/- was imposed for the FY 2013-14 concerning AY 2014-15. 3. It is the case of the assessee that section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

M/S. ORION STEEL CORPORATION,ANAND vs. THE ACIT.,CPC-TDS, GHAZIYABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS returns under section 200A even prior to 01.06.2015. Accordingly the action of charging late filing fee u/s 234E is confirmed.” 4. The assessee thereafter filed applications under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act pointing out the apparent error. These applications have been disposed of by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order passed separately for different quarters

M/S. MAHAMANTRA TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT, TDS,CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 476 & 477/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

2 - aggregate for late filing of TDS return with the aid of S-234E of the Act r.w.s. S-200A of the Act. In the captioned appeal, the assessee seeks to challenge the imposition of late filing fees imposed under s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing statements contemplated under s. 200A r.w.r. 31A of the Income

M/S. MAHAMANTRA TEXTILES MILLS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT, TDS,CPC,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 476 & 477/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15)

2 - aggregate for late filing of TDS return with the aid of S-234E of the Act r.w.s. S-200A of the Act. In the captioned appeal, the assessee seeks to challenge the imposition of late filing fees imposed under s. 234E of the Act for default in furnishing statements contemplated under s. 200A r.w.r. 31A of the Income

SHRI RAM KRUPA MEDICARE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2021-22

TDS, Ghaziabad, UP) without issuing a notice u/s. 154(3) and/or without giving an opportunity to the Appellant of being heard. In the light of the above circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have quashed the order u's. 154 as illegal and void-ab-initio 2. The Ld CTT(A) has not taken into cognizance the fact that

SHRI MAHILA SEWA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the five appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Parting, It Is Appropriate To Add That In Case The Assessee Is Able To Show That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Non-Representation On The Date Of Hearing, It Would Be At Liberty If So Advised To Pray For A Recall Of This Order.

TDS, Opp. Town Hall, Vs Ahmedabad Ahmedabd-380009 (Respondent) PAN: AHMS00991E (Appellant) Revenue by: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: None Date of hearing : 19-03-2019 Date of pronouncement : 25-03-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- These five appeals filed by assessee for A.Y. 2013-14, arise from order of the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad