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

section 234E of the income tax act 1961. 2. After going through the records and hearing the learned DR, we have decided to the appeal on merits in the larger interest of justice. On perusal I.T.A. Nos. 159 &160/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 of the records, it is revealed that the appellant assessee is a private limited company

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

section 234E of the income tax act 1961. 2. After going through the records and hearing the learned DR, we have decided to the appeal on merits in the larger interest of justice. On perusal I.T.A. Nos. 159 &160/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 of the records, it is revealed that the appellant assessee is a private limited company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ( EXEMPTIONS ) WARD, AMRITSAR

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

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

234E. Fee for default in furnishing statements.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable

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

234E. Fee for default in furnishing statements.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the Act, where a person fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a statement within the time prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C, he shall be liable

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

234E of the Income Tax Act for the returns filed prior to 2 Iqbal Memorial Trust v. ITO 01.06.2015. There was a delay of six days in filing the appeal on account of delay in delivery of the appeal by the Postal Law Authority which beyond the control of the assessee. He stated that the appeal was sent by speed

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

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

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 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 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