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

TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability

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

TDS statements pertaining to any period before 01.06.2015 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding 6. The Learned CIT(A) erred in holding that section that section 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability to pay fee, 234E by itself creates a charge and liability

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

6 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS

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

6 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS

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

6 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS

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

6 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS

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

6 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS

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

6 I.T.A. No.2015 to 2030/Chny/18 into various aspects of the issue, we make reference to the Memorandum explaining the Finance Bill, 2015, under which the heading was rationalization of provisions relating to Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) and Tax Collection at Source (TCS). The said memorandum categorically recognized that under the existing provisions of the Act, after processing of TDS

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO, TDS, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

SIBICHAKRAVATHI TENZINGH,NAMAKKAL vs. ITO,TDS,, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shukla

220(2) of Rs.18,349/-, aggregating to Rs.49,510/- for the aforesaid delay in filing of Quarterly TDS statement. The ld.CIT(A) affirm the order of AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In all appeals, facts are similar to that of FY 2012-13. 3. Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the assessee is in appeal before

K.R.DEVENDRIER SON,SALEM vs. ITO TDS WARD, SALEM

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

Bench: Shri Abraham P.George & Shri Duvvuru R.L.Reddyआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2953/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2013-14 K.R. Devendrier Son, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 176, Fort Main Road, Shevapet, Tds Ward, 3, Gandhi Road, Salem 636 002. Salem 636 007. [Pan: Aacfk0776D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. S. Sriniranjini, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26.11.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Duvvuru R.L.Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, Dated 29.09.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Fees Levied Under Section 234E Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

220(2) of the Act. Further, amendments were also made in respect of the scheme of payment of TDS / TCS by the Government, deductor / collector which are not relevant for deciding the issue in the present appeal and hence, the same are not being referred to. The Finance Bill further provided that the amendment would take effect from

AVA SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A), DELHI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the Respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent . 10. Appellants pray that the learned AO be directed

AVA SOFTWARE PVT LTD,CHENNAI vs. CIT(A), CHENNAI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

TDS deducted for the respective assessment year prior to 1.6.2015. Hence, the demand notices under Section 200A by the Respondent authority for intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent . 10. Appellants pray that the learned AO be directed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

6\nAY 2012-13\nAssessee (ITA No. 1205/CHNY/2024)\n2 to 5\nAY 2013-14\nAssessee (ITA No. 1206/CHNY/2024)\n2 to 4\nAY 2014-15\nAssessee (ITA No. 1207/CHNY/2024)\n2 to 4\n4.1 The facts relating to the issue of disallowance under section 14A\nof the Act is common for all the AYs being

SSS CONSTRUCTIONS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CPC , CHENNAI

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3495 To 3504/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) M/S. Sss Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of 678, T.H.Road, . Income Tax, New Washermanpet, Cpc-Tds , Chennai-600 081. Ghaziabad. Pan: Abnfs 8664G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

TDS statement U/s 200A is bad in law. The Ld. CCIT demanding Interest U/s 220(2) and Late Fee U/s 234E is contrary to law. 3. The amendment by finance Act, 2015 made to Section 200A(c) cannot be treated as having retrospective effect, the Ld. assessing Officer has applied the provisions