ANOTRA REALATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT (CENTRAL)- 1, CHENNAI

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

6. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are initiated separately.\"\nThe assessment has become final as the assessee has not\nchallenged the same in appeal.\n4. Subsequently, on perusal of assessment records for the\nrelevant assessment year 2016-17, the PCIT issued show cause\nnotice and fixed the hearing on 14.02.2024 asking the assessee as\nto why the assessment order passed u/s.143

ARUSUVAI FOOD PROCESSORS PVT. LTD.,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

133(6) were issued to these parties. 32 parties responded with confirmations and ledgers. In 4 cases, either balance was NIL or confirmations were not received. However, in respect of 12 parties, trade advances aggregating to ₹1,70,16,220/- remained unsettled for more than 5 years. Based on the prolonged non-settlement of trade advances received

VEERA CREATIONS,TIRUPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,TDS WARD, TIRUPUR

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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. SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTUIONS COMPANY P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD112, KALIAMMAN KOIL STREET, NATESA NAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.1,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO.P LTD,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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 SOUTH EAST CONSTRUCTIONS CO. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT,CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

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

THE CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD ,TRICHY vs. CIT , CPC , TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the fees levied by TDS officer u/s 234E for Financial

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.807/Chny/2022 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Congregation Of The Sisters Of The The Acit, Cpc बनाम/ Cross Of Chavanod, Tds, Ghaziabad Holy Cross Provincilate, Puthur, Vs. Tiruchirappalli-620 017. थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan: Aaatt-4867-G / (अपीलाथ)/Appellant) : (*+थ) / Respondent) अपीलाथ)कीओरसे/ Appellant By : None *+थ)कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ar.V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Sr. Dr

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