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

TDS statements is governed by section 234E of the Act. On perusal of sub section (1) of section 234E, it is clear

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.

TDS statement as prescribed in sec. 200 of the Act. Therefore, as mandated by the statute u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Act, the AO has correctly charged the default and the consequential levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. 7.2 Section 200A(1

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS returns. That the late fees detail for Form No. 26Q is as under: Amount Section FY Quarter Due Date Date of filing i) Rs. 90400/- 234E 2013-14/Q2 15.10.2013 03.01.2015 ii) Rs. 37,886/- 234E 2013-14/Q4 31.05.2014 02.01.2015 3. That the assessee filed the first appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi which was dismissed

BATRA EXPORTS,FAZILKA vs. DCIT, |TDS,, LUDHIANA

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

TDS returns. That the late fees detail for Form No. 26Q is as under: Amount Section FY Quarter Due Date Date of filing i) Rs. 90400/- 234E 2013-14/Q2 15.10.2013 03.01.2015 ii) Rs. 37,886/- 234E 2013-14/Q4 31.05.2014 02.01.2015 3. That the assessee filed the first appeal before the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi which was dismissed

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)

1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS statements / returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E

PRINCIPAL RAJIV GANDHI GOVT. AYURVEDIC COLLEGE ,PAPROLA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD (ITO, TDS), PALAMPUR

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

1 of F.Y. 2015-16, form 24Q, has been levied while processing the TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act on 16.6.2016. Section 200A of the Act titled "Processing of statements of tax deduction at source" was inserted by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Section 234E

PRINCIPAL RAJIV GANDHI GOVT. AYURVEDIC COLLEGE ,PAPROLA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD (ITO, TDS), PALAMPUR

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

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

1 of F.Y. 2015-16, form 24Q, has been levied while processing the TDS statement u/s 200A of the Act on 16.6.2016. Section 200A of the Act titled "Processing of statements of tax deduction at source" was inserted by Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01.04.2010. Section 234E

NAVPREET SINGH BHASIN,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, TDS-2, CHANDIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

TDS returns for the financial years 2012-13, 13-14 & 14-15. It was submitted that there was no provision for levying fee under section 200A for the period prior to 01.06.2015 and the same was subsequently inserted in section 200A(1)(c) with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, the fee levied under section 234E

M/S SONALAC PAINTS AND COATINGS LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), VAISHALI JURISDICTION AT ITO, TDS-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sonalac Paints & Coatings Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Sco Plot No. 768, Indl. Area, Cpc(Tds),Vaishali , Phase-Ii, Chandigarh. Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaics4995D Current Jurisdiction: Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh. & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Nagpal Trading Co., Vs. The Dcit, Sco No. 1037, Sector 22-B, Cpc(Tds),Vaishali , Chandigarh. Ghaziabad Pan No. Aaefn0052F Current Jurisdiction: Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh

234E could not be charged by way of making adjustment while processing TDS return u/s 200A of the Act. Our attention was drawn to the following case laws in support of the above proposition : 1. M/s Khanna Watches Ltd. V DCIT CPC(TDS) ITA 731 to 735/CHD/2015 dated 29.10.2015 2. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

M/S CHILL POINT ENGINEERS PVT LTD,CHANDIGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GAZIABAD

In the result, all appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Chill Point Engineers P.Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, H.No. 2217, Hem Kutir, Cpc(Tds), Vaishali, Mani Majra, Ghaziabad Chandigarh. Current Jurisdiction: Pan No. Aabcc5144R Ito(Tds-1)Chandigarh. & Assessment Year: 2013-14

234E could not be charged by way of making adjustment while processing TDS return u/s 200A of the Act. Our attention was drawn to the following case laws in support of the above proposition : 1. M/s Khanna Watches Ltd. V DCIT CPC(TDS) ITA 731 to 735/CHD/2015 dated 29.10.2015 2. Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

STYLAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, TDS, CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 194-IA, assessee was supposed to deduct TDS on payments exceeding Rs.50 lacs for purchase of land or building except agriculture land. This TDS was to be deducted @ 1%, thus, according to the AO, assessee failed to deduct the TDS. Therefore, he worked out a default of Rs.1,25,546/- u/s 201(1) and charged interest

M/S N.N. FOREX TRAVEL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,MOHALI vs. DCIT (CPC), TDS, , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Ms Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

TDS returns filed by the assessee were processed and intimation sent to the assessee u/s section 200A of the Act, dated 13/01/2015 and 21/03/2014,levying fees for late filing of the returns, as per section 234E of the Act, amounting to Rs.12,683 and Rs.10,300 respectively. 3. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid intimations, challenging the levy

M/S LOTUS MACHINES PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS-1), VAISHALI CURRENT JURISDCITION ITO (TDS-1), CHANDIGARH

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, stated that the adjustment made in the present case of levying fees u/s 234E while processing the TDS return u/s 200A of the Act was bad in law. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ITAT in a number of cases had deleted

ST. BEDES EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), VAISHALI

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14

Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2015. The ld. counsel for the assessee, therefore, stated that the adjustment made in the present case of levying fees u/s 234E while processing the TDS return u/s 200A of the Act was bad in law. The ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ITAT in a number of cases had deleted