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), Gaziabad I.T.A. No.90/Asr/2015 dated 9-Jun-2015 2

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), Gaziabad I.T.A. No.90/Asr/2015 dated 9-Jun-2015 2

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

2. THAT THE ORDER WAS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME WAS MADE WITHOUT LISTENING TO THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS IN CANADA DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE MATTER IN APPEAL. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMDND, ALTER, MODIFY ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPELA.” 3. The appeal

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

200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax deductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 19th February 2014, such a levy could only have been made at best within 31st March

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

2 of the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.01.2014. These statements are processed on 16.10.2016 and 13.11.2016 by levy u/s 234E, on account of late filing of TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act. 3. The ld. counsel of the assessee argued that there is no provision of levying the fees u/s 234E prior to 1st June, 2015. The issue

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

2 of the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.01.2014. These statements are processed on 16.10.2016 and 13.11.2016 by levy u/s 234E, on account of late filing of TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act. 3. The ld. counsel of the assessee argued that there is no provision of levying the fees u/s 234E prior to 1st June, 2015. The issue

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

2 of the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.01.2014. These statements are processed on 16.10.2016 and 13.11.2016 by levy u/s 234E, on account of late filing of TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act. 3. The ld. counsel of the assessee argued that there is no provision of levying the fees u/s 234E prior to 1st June, 2015. The issue

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

2 of the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.01.2014. These statements are processed on 16.10.2016 and 13.11.2016 by levy u/s 234E, on account of late filing of TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act. 3. The ld. counsel of the assessee argued that there is no provision of levying the fees u/s 234E prior to 1st June, 2015. The issue

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

2 of the assessment year 2014-15 on 11.01.2014. These statements are processed on 16.10.2016 and 13.11.2016 by levy u/s 234E, on account of late filing of TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act. 3. The ld. counsel of the assessee argued that there is no provision of levying the fees u/s 234E prior to 1st June, 2015. The issue

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

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

2 of F.Y. 2012-13after the prescribed date, consequently the delay in filing of TDS statement has been occurred, therefore the ITA N0s. 130 to 135/Asr/ 2019 3 (A.Ys.2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Director Punjab Agricultural Uni. Vs ITO (TDS) Assessing Officer (TDS-CPC) had imposed a late fee of Rs.9000 U/s 234E for delay in filing

KASHMIR DISTILLERIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. CPC TDS, GHAZIBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

200A, raising a demand or directing a refund to the tax diductor, can only be passed within one year from the end of the financial year within which the related TDS statement is filed, and as the related TDS statement was filed on 24.04.2013 and 22.08. 2013 for the assessment year 2013-14 and similarly, for the next assessment year

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section

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

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal dismissing the appeal as unadmitted. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred in not exercising the discretion vested upon him by virtue of section