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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS in Form No.24Q and 26Q. The provision of law, however reveals that the said default attracts penalty under section 272A(2)(k

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

TDS in Form No.24Q and 26Q. The provision of law, however reveals that the said default attracts penalty under section 272A(2)(k

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

k) and not u/s 272A(2)(g). There is no default, as contemplated us 272A(2)(g) of the Act. Hence, no penalty could have been levied u/s 272A(2)(g) of the Act. On this short count, penalty in question deserves to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS returns were filed much before issuance

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

TDS Range, Ahmedabad of even date i.e. 29.11.2012 under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

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

TDS Range, Ahmedabad of even date i.e. 29.11.2012 under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

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

TDS Range, Ahmedabad of even date i.e. 29.11.2012 under Section 272A(2)(k) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

JWALA LOGISTIC PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad

272A(2)(k), “if any person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a copy of the statement within the time specified in section 200(3) or the proviso to section 206C(3), is liable to pay by way of penalty a sum (of one hundred rupees) for everyday during which the failure continues.” 2.4 F.Y. Quarter Due Date

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

k) of sub-section (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

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

2. The Assessing Officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in levying late filing fees of Rs. 19,500/- u/s. 234E of IT Act and confirming the same. The same deserves to be deleted.” 3. There are 8 appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to levy of fees u/s. 234E for delay