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

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

TDS) 7. The CIT(A) has while distinguishing the coordinate Bench decision has not been appreciated the facts of the case, in issuance of intimation under section 200A. In any cases before June 2015 no such levy shall be applicable during intimation under section 200A after 01.06.2015 as it is procedural lapse. Thus, relief has been provided to all cases

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

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

TDS) 7. The CIT(A) has while distinguishing the coordinate Bench decision has not been appreciated the facts of the case, in issuance of intimation under section 200A. In any cases before June 2015 no such levy shall be applicable during intimation under section 200A after 01.06.2015 as it is procedural lapse. Thus, relief has been provided to all cases

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

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

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

c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS

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

c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC 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

c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS

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

c) to section 200A(1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. As such, prior to said substation, CPC TDS

SURJIT MEMORIAL EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,FEROZEPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD ( EXEMPTIONS), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

c) of sub-section (1) of section 200A would be in nature of (a) clarificatory amendment. Even in absence of such provision, as noted, it was always open for the revenue to charge the fee in terms of section 234E of the Act. 7.2. The ld. DR and the ld. CIT(A) relied on the order

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

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