M/S. IQBAL MEMORIAL TRUST ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS “8. statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the “fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E”. There is no dispute that what is impugned in appeal before us is the intimation under section 200A of the Act, as stated

B D S TECHNOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1) of the Act. The second aspect of the issue raised in the set of appeals is charging of fees payable under section 234E of the Act prior to amendment to section 200A(l)(c) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS

B D S TECHOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1) of the Act. The second aspect of the issue raised in the set of appeals is charging of fees payable under section 234E of the Act prior to amendment to section 200A(l)(c) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS

B D S TECHNOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1) of the Act. The second aspect of the issue raised in the set of appeals is charging of fees payable under section 234E of the Act prior to amendment to section 200A(l)(c) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS

B D S TECHNOLOGIES,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1) of the Act. The second aspect of the issue raised in the set of appeals is charging of fees payable under section 234E of the Act prior to amendment to section 200A(l)(c) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS

B D S TECHNOLOGIES ,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

1) of the Act. The second aspect of the issue raised in the set of appeals is charging of fees payable under section 234E of the Act prior to amendment to section 200A(l)(c) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015, while processing the TDS

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS) , SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200A as there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. In support, the appellant has relied on following judicial pronouncements- 1. ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v DCIT (TDS

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200A as there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. In support, the appellant has relied on following judicial pronouncements- 1. ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v DCIT (TDS

GULMARG DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY ,BARAMULA vs. INCOME TAX OFICER ( TDS), SRINAGAR

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

200A as there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. In support, the appellant has relied on following judicial pronouncements- 1. ITAT, Amritsar in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited v DCIT (TDS

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS had no authority to charge the fees undere section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS had no authority to charge the fees undere section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A

SANT SOLDIER ENGINEERS AND CONTRCTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS had no authority to charge the fees undere section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A

SANT SOLIDER ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC-TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee through in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Borad

1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS had no authority to charge the fees undere section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH ,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALNDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A

DIRECTOR PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY FRUIT RESEARCH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), JALANDHAR

TDS) 8. Karnataka High Court in the case of Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors. vs. Union of India ((2016) 289 CTR (KAR) 602 has held that substitution made by Clause (c) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Sec. 200A