UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

UNITED INDIA INSUANCE CO LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT 3, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD 1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

PRAKASHCHAND,CHENNAI vs. ITO, TDS WARD-1,, CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

10. The Learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the levy of interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an interest under section 220(2), which being consequential to an invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsus invalid demand under. section 234E, is equally unsustainable. tainable. The Appellant

STATE BANK OF INDIA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT TDS, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 State Bank Of India Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Industrial Finance Branch, Income Tax, 103, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002. Tds Circle 3(1), [Tan:Ches02510E] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. G. Vardini Karthik, Advocate (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Madan Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.06.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(1)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Raised 17 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Order Passed Under Section 201/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

TDS. The ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order during the pendency of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. She submits that the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the proforma submitted by the employees containing the entire details of journey undertaken and the related expenses are not hit by the provisions of 5 I.T.A. No.1465/Chny/24 section 10

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such

DOLLARS & POUNDS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

5 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 DCIT (supra) on another aspect wherein it was held that before 01.06.2015, whether the Assessing Officer had authority to pass a separate order under section 234E of the Act levying fees for delay in filing the TDS statements under section 200(3) of the Act; the Tribunal held 'yes' that the assessing authority had such

ALFHA COACH BUILDERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act for the subject

ALFHA COACH BUILDERS,KARUR vs. ITO, WARD-1,, KARUR

In the result, all six these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 32 & 33/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Alfha Coach Builders, The Income Tax Officer, Sf No.596’3, Andan Kovil East, Vs. Ward -1, Pudhur, Covai Road, Karur. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaofa-8970-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

10. There is no dispute on the aspect of validity of the Section 234E of the Act. The only issue that has to be decided in the present case is as to whether the late fee can be imposed under Section 234E of the Act, while processing the statement of TDS under Section 200A of the Act for the subject

M/S GOPURAM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

5 -: “17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under

M/S GOPURAM ENTERPRISES PVT LTD ,CHENNAI vs. ITO , TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

5 -: “17. In view of the above, it is made clear that the respondent had had imposed the late fee only under Section 234E of the Act for the assessment years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015. However, Section 200A(1)(c) of the Act was not introduced during the said assessment years. In the absence of any provisions under