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

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

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

section 200A(1) was substituted by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 1-6-2015. The assessee contended before NFAC (CIT(A)/first appellate authority) that AO could levy fee u/s.234E of the Act while processing a return of I.T.A. Nos.202 & 203/Asr/2022 6 Assessment Years: 2018-19& 2019-20 TDS filed u/s.200(3

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

3 Assessment Year: 2015-16 unable to represent the matter because assessee’s counsel for out of state. The issue is well settled by the same bench of ITAT-Amritsar. The adjournment petition is not covered any plausible reason for adjournment of hearing. Accordingly, the adjournment petition is rejected. We proceed to dispose of the matter ex parte

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

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. ITAT A Bench, Chennai in the case

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. ITAT A Bench, Chennai in the case

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. ITAT A Bench, Chennai in the case

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

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 of levy of fee u/s 234E has been settled in view of the plethora of decisions. The ld. AR has contended that the order u/s 154 should

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

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 of levy of fee u/s 234E has been settled in view of the plethora of decisions. The ld. AR has contended that the order u/s 154 should

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

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 of levy of fee u/s 234E has been settled in view of the plethora of decisions. The ld. AR has contended that the order u/s 154 should

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

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 of levy of fee u/s 234E has been settled in view of the plethora of decisions. The ld. AR has contended that the order u/s 154 should

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

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 of levy of fee u/s 234E has been settled in view of the plethora of decisions. The ld. AR has contended that the order u/s 154 should

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

TDS returns imposed late fee under section 234E amounting to Rs.163,309/- and rupees 15,200/- respectively- 3. In the written submissions, the appellant contended that as per provisions of section 200A

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

TDS)’, and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of “Fathehraj Singhavi and others”289 CTR 602. 4. The ITAT, Chennai Bench, in the case of ‘Smt. G Indrani Vs. DCIT (3)’, in ITA Nos. 1019,1020,1021/ Mds / 2015 clearly held that it is open to the Assessing Officer to pass a separate order under Section 234E

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

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 of Quarterly TDS statement. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 200A wherein fee u/s 234E was levied, the assessee filed first appeal before

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

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 of Quarterly TDS statement. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 200A wherein fee u/s 234E was levied, the assessee filed first appeal before

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

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 of Quarterly TDS statement. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 200A wherein fee u/s 234E was levied, the assessee filed first appeal before

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

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 of Quarterly TDS statement. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 200A wherein fee u/s 234E was levied, the assessee filed first appeal before

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

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 of Quarterly TDS statement. 5. Aggrieved by the intimation u/s 200A wherein fee u/s 234E was levied, the assessee filed first appeal before