AMRIK SINGH BHULLAR,SANGRUR vs. ITO, WARD, SANGRUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

section 154(8) but the order was passed on 09-11-2018 i.e. after expiry of 6 months.” 2. By the remaining grounds, the assessee assails the issue on merits. 3. At the time of hearing, an adjournment application was moved on behalf of the assessee. None was present in support thereof. However, considering the record, the ld. Sr.DR addressing

M/S STEEL STRIPS WHEELS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT (TDS), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Steel Strips Wheels Limited, Vs. The D.C.I.T.(Tds), Sco 49-50, Sector 26, Sector 17E, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan: Aaccs3003L (Appellant) (Respondent)

154 of the Act, of the intimation made by the AO u/s 200A of the Act on processing TDS return filed by the assessee, vis-a-vis levy of interest on account of late deposit of TDS. The said section

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154

GEETA SHARMA,SUNAM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PATIALA

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

TDS and TCS, the assessee has shown interest received from land acquisition at Rs. 2,79,08,506.00 and compensation received under land acquisition at Rs, 4,86,426.00, both aggregated to Rs. 2,83,94,932.00. This has been claimed exempt U/s 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That as per Annexure to notice

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

Section 234E of the Act. Therefore, in case, there is a default or delay in submitting the TDS statements, a late fee is levied as contemplated U/s 234E of the Act and the A.O. while processing the statements of TDS shall make the adjustment on this account. Thus, so far as the nature of levy U/s 234E

ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SML ISUZU LTD., CHANDIGARH

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

TDS particulars was wholly unjustified. [Para 7] As regards second ground for reopening the assessment, the dividend income received during the year was claimed as exempt and the same was accepted in the assessment order passed under section 143(3). The reason for reopening the assessment was that in the absence of particulars it could not be said that

HP AGRO INDUSTRIES CORP. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), VAISHALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri R.L Negiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1072/Chd/2018 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S H.P. Agro Industries The Asstt. Cit, बनाम Corporation Ltd., Centralized Processing Cell-Tds, Plot No. 8, Bangluru Pesticide Unit, Parwanoo (H.P) "थायीलेखासं./Pan No: Ptlh11428E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Hearing Through Video Conferencing "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Advocate राज"वक"ओरसे/ Revenue By : Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, Addl. Cit(Dr)

154 of the Act rejecting rectification application moved by assessee against intimation issued levying late filing fees ITA No. 1072-Chd/2018- M/s H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd, Parwanoo 6 charged under section 234E of the Act. The case of assessee before us is that the issue is squarely covered by various orders of Tribunal, wherein the issue has been decided

SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGLA,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), LUDHIANA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President)

TDS amounting to Rs.3,39,080/- to the assessee; that the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO’s action of rejecting the claim of the assessee that the mistake was outside the purview of a mistake apparent from record within the meaning of Section 154

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. M/S AARTI STEELS LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied thus

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied thus

DCIT, C-4, LUDHIANA vs. AARTI INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, LUDHIANA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1619/Chd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-09 The Dcit, Circle-4, बनाम M/S Aarti Steels Ltd., Ludhiana G.T. Raod, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./Pan No:Aabca4455D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

section 115JAA of the Act at Rs.4,62,96,497/- which again did not include surcharge and cess. The net tax liability was thus arrived at Rs. 8,48,03,029/- (Rs. 13,11,08,526 – Rs.4,62,95,497/-). On the same surcharge @ 10% and education cess @ 3% was added and also interest u/s 234 C was levied thus

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

Section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984-85 and thereafter.” 13. In the present case also, the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.6.2015 while the returns were filed by the assessee prior to that amendment and the TDS

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

Section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984-85 and thereafter.” 13. In the present case also, the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.6.2015 while the returns were filed by the assessee prior to that amendment and the TDS

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

Section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984-85 and thereafter.” 13. In the present case also, the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.6.2015 while the returns were filed by the assessee prior to that amendment and the TDS

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

Section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984-85 and thereafter.” 13. In the present case also, the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.6.2015 while the returns were filed by the assessee prior to that amendment and the TDS

ADHUNIK PACKAGERS PVT. LTD.,PARWANOO vs. ITO (TDS), SOLAN

Bench: The Said Date I.E. 1.6.2015. Therefore, The Mistake Was Apparent From The Record & Required To Be Rectified U/S 154 Of The Act. .

Section 154 of the Act. It is clear that the statutory provision having come into force w.e.f. 1.4.1984, the same could have been applied for the assessment year 1984-85 and thereafter.” 13. In the present case also, the amendment took place w.e.f. 1.6.2015 while the returns were filed by the assessee prior to that amendment and the TDS