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

DCIT-2(1), , CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD,, CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5 years. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “105. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was an agreement between the assessee and M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. It is an electronic era and advertisement has to be made through electronic media. Even though conventional

THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5 years. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “105. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was an agreement between the assessee and M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. It is an electronic era and advertisement has to be made through electronic media. Even though conventional

DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE -2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5 years. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “105. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was an agreement between the assessee and M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. It is an electronic era and advertisement has to be made through electronic media. Even though conventional

DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI vs. THE INDIA CEMENTS LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos: 2145 & 2210/Chny/2017, Ita 737/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2008-09 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. The India Cements Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandel Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No: 2038/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 76/Chny/2018 (In Ita No.737/Chny/2018) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. The India Cements Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.93, Coromandal Towers, Corporate Circle – 2(1), Santhome High Road, Chennai – 34. R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028. Pan: Aaact 1728P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

5 years. The relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under:- “105. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. Admittedly, there was an agreement between the assessee and M/s Kalaignar TV Pvt. Ltd. It is an electronic era and advertisement has to be made through electronic media. Even though conventional

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. -, -

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMIL NADU GRAMA BANK SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,- vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK,OMANDUR,SALEM vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice

TAMILNADU GRAMA BANK, SHOOLAGIRI,SALEM vs. DCIT, CPC,TDS, GAZIABAD

The appeals stand dismissed

253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice