ITO (TDS), ROHTAK vs. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, JHAJJAR

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 6491 To 6494/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer, Tds Vs The Executive Engineer, Rohtak Panchayati Raj, Jhajjar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Rtkpo1586E Assessee By : Sh. Naveen Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2015 Order Per Bench:

8. In his rival submissions the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission made before the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee corrected the mistakes in the PAN. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " CIT(TDS) Vs Superintendent of Police

ITO (TDS), ROHTAK vs. M/S. L.T. FOODS, SONEPAT

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 6488/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Income Tax Officer (Tds), Vs M/S L. T. Foods, Rohtak 43, K. M. Stone, G.T. Road, Bahalgarh, Distt. Sonepat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Rtklo00819A Assessee By : Sh. Sanat Kapoor, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Department Against The Order Dated 25.09.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A), Rohtak.

TDS). In the instant case, failure to quote occurred as the concerned depositor had misquoted PAN. There is also no dispute that the PAN was corrected after ascertaining the same from the respective deductees." 5. The finding of the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal with the following observations:- "7. In the above case, the Tribunal held that cumulative

M/S. VEETEE FINE FOODS LTD.,HARYANA vs. ITO (TDS), ROHTAK

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishii.T.A. No. 4941/Del/2015 (A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Veetee Fine Foods Ltd., Vs Ito(Tds) 56-57 Km Mile Stone, Rohtak. G. T. Karnal Road, Larsauli, Sonepat -131 001 (Pan : Aaacp 0658 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Saroj Agarwal, C.A. Ms. Sonia Rani, C.A. Respondent By Shri G. Johnson, Sr. D.R.

Section 139A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. During the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that there is delay of 730 days in filing appeal for the reasons set out in the application filed for condonation

KUNSHAN Q TECH MICROELECTRONICS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, DELHI

139A merely provides who are the persons required to obtain PAN having regard to the nature of transaction of business and other conditions laid down that, Assessing Officer may allot a PAN and other procedure and mechanism of allotment of the PAN. The territorial jurisdiction is decided by the CBDT in terms of Section 120 only. Here, in this case