XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All four appeals relate to the same assessee and pertain to two different assessment years i.e. Asst.Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 with the issues involved relating to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(g) and section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D E R आदेश आदेश PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All four appeals relate to the same assessee and pertain to two different assessment years i.e. Asst.Year 2015-16 and 2016-17 with the issues involved relating to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(g) and section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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 (3) of section 206C

SHRI MELDI MAA T.B. HOSPITAL TRUST,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS,, GAZIABAD

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

TDS CPC has charged late filing fee of Rs. 19,500/- for quarter-1 of assessment year 2015-16 u/s. 234E of the act. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) stating that as per the law stood prior to first June, 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These four appeals have been filed by the assessee against four different orders dated 08.06.2018, 09.06.2018, 08.06.2018 & 09.06.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17 respectively. 2. The grounds raised are as under :- ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 Your appellant

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These four appeals have been filed by the assessee against four different orders dated 08.06.2018, 09.06.2018, 08.06.2018 & 09.06.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17 respectively. 2. The grounds raised are as under :- ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 Your appellant

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These four appeals have been filed by the assessee against four different orders dated 08.06.2018, 09.06.2018, 08.06.2018 & 09.06.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17 respectively. 2. The grounds raised are as under :- ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 Your appellant

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : These four appeals have been filed by the assessee against four different orders dated 08.06.2018, 09.06.2018, 08.06.2018 & 09.06.2018 passed by the CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad pertaining to A.Ys. 2015-16, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2016-17 respectively. 2. The grounds raised are as under :- ITA No.1815/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2015-16 Your appellant

M/S. STALLION FINSTOCK PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes

D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These three appeals of the assessee for AYs 2010-11 to 2012-13 are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad dated 19.07.2013, arising out of separate orders passed by the JCIT, TDS Range, Ahmedabad of even date i.e. 29.11.2012 under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income