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

RAJOURI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS returns beyond the limitation specified under proviso to section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which otherwise make intimation u/s 200A void ab initio. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts of the appellant’s case, as the order is full of presumptions and surmises as well as wrong statement of facts

RAJOURI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ,RAJOURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), JAMMU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS returns beyond the limitation specified under proviso to section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which otherwise make intimation u/s 200A void ab initio. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts of the appellant’s case, as the order is full of presumptions and surmises as well as wrong statement of facts