ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. S & P FOUNDATION P. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

b) “ specified previous year” means the previous year – (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before

S & P FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 382/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Income Tax, Chennai 600 017. Central Circle Iv(2), [Pan:Aaics0224K] Chennai - 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2085/Chny/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. S&P Foundations Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle Iv(2), Madley Road, T. Nagar, Vs. Chennai - 34. Chennai 600 017. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Shri J. Pavithran Kumar, Jcit Department By : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ii, Chennai, Dated 05.12.2012 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2007-08 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

b) “ specified previous year” means the previous year – (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before

JAYASHREE AND COMPANY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPPUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Jayashree & Company, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1-B, Kumar Nagar West, Ward 1(2), Valayangadu, Tirupur 641 603. Tiruppur. [Pan:Aaefj4555F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19 Under Sections 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Respectively.

section 271(1)(b) of the Act against exparte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm and as per information available with the Assessing Officer, which was flagged by the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT having tax implications towards shipping bill for exports (Custom – Export) ₹.66,84,888/- and TDS

JAYASHREE AND COMPANY,TIRUPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPUR

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3349 & 3350/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Jayashree & Company, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1-B, Kumar Nagar West, Ward 1(2), Valayangadu, Tirupur 641 603. Tiruppur. [Pan:Aaefj4555F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 18.11.2024 & 14.11.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Years 2016-17 & 2018-19 Under Sections 271(1)(B) & 271(1)(D) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Respectively.

section 271(1)(b) of the Act against exparte assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The assessee is a partnership firm and as per information available with the Assessing Officer, which was flagged by the Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT having tax implications towards shipping bill for exports (Custom – Export) ₹.66,84,888/- and TDS

JCIT, COIMBATORE vs. CHROMA PRINT INDIA PVT . LTD., COIMBATORE

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No.2083/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Joint Commissioner Of M/S. Chroma Print India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Tds Range, Vs. P.B. No. 5316, 53, Ganesh Nagar, Coimbatore. G.N. Mills Post, Mtp Road, Coimbatore. [Pan:Aaccc6021A] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Veni Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T.N. Seetharaman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 2, Coimbatore Dated 30.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds In Its Appeal: “1. The Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Opposed To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That No Penalty Is Leviable On The Non Deduction Of Tds On Payment Of Labour Charges Worth

271, section 271A, section 271AA, section 271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 6 I.T.A. No.2083/M/16 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, section 271F, section 271FA, section 271FB, section 271G, section 271H, clause (c) or clause (d) of sub section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or subsection (1

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

TDS while paying the said amount. In the scrutiny\nassessment, AO noticed the above and observed that the said payments constitute\nroyalty as contained in Explanation-2 read with Explanation-3 to section 9(1)(vi) of\nthe Act. AO invoked the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act.\n26. During the first appellate proceedings, CIT (A) observed

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC,-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

M/S CIGFIL LTD,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manomohan Das1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.328/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-2) & 2.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.329/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-3) & 3.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.330/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (24Q-Q-4) & 4.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.331/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-2) & 5.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.332/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-3) & 6.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.333/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (26Q-Q-4) & 7.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.334/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-1) & 8.आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.335/Chny/2023 (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2014-15 (24Q-Q-2) &

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section