YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

YAMUNA KHADAR SHIKSHA SAMITI,DELHI vs. ITO, TDS, MUZAFFARNAGAR

In the result, all the Eleven appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Before Shri A.N. Misshra

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

VARDHMAN BUILDTECH P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JT.CIT, RANGE-78, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareekvardhman Buildtech P. Ltd., Vs. Jcit, Range 78, Wz – 22A, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi. Vashista Park, Pankha Road, New Delhi – 110 046. (Pan : Aaccv6445M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amit Arora, Ca Shri Suresh Kapoor, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 Date Of Order : 28.05.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 15.11.2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. In This Case, Assessee Was Imposed Penalty Of Rs.30,12,420/- Under Section 272A(2)(G) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) By The Jcit In Order Dated 30.09.2016. 2 3. Brief Statement Of Facts By Assessee Before The Ld. Cit (A) Read As Under :- “Appellant Was Imposed Penalty Of Rs.3012420 Under Section 272A 2 G By Ld. Joint Commissioner Vide Impugned Order Dt. 30.09.2016. According To Him The Appellant Did Not Comply With Provision Of Section 203 Of The Act. The Appellant Has Delayed In Issuing Tds Certificate Thereby Attracting Penalty Under Section 272A 2 G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Proceeding For Imposition Of Penalty Was Initiated Through A Show Cause Notice Under Section 272A 2 G Read With Section 274 1 Dated 22.03.2016 In Response To The Above Final Reply Dated 06.04.2016 Was Filed By The Appellant. The Submission Of The Appellant Was Not Considered By Ld. Joint Commissioner As A Result Penalty Of Rs.3012420 Was Imposed. Feeling Aggrieved With The Order Of Ld Joint Commissioner The Appellant Has Preferred An Appeal.”

2 g by Ld. Joint Commissioner vide impugned order dt. 30.09.2016. According to him the appellant did not comply with provision of Section 203 of the Act. The appellant has delayed in issuing TDS certificate thereby attracting penalty under section 272A

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, no penalty shall be levied for the failure referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

W SERVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ACIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Anubhav Sharma

2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, no penalty shall be levied for the failure referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

M/S. SAMIKARAN LEARNING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Joginder Singh

272A(1) of the Act, no penalty is to be levied. He stressed that after such an amendment, the provisions of section 234E of the Act were compulsorily applicable. The learned DR further pointed out that penalty for non-furnishing of statement under section 200(3) of the Act is provided under section 271H of the Act, where the word

PARK LAND HOSPITALITY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT , RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act for delay in issuing TDS Certificates to the respective payees. 4. On perusal

PARK LAND HOSPITALITY LTD,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 272A(2)(g) of the Act for delay in issuing TDS Certificates to the respective payees. 4. On perusal

PARAMOUNT VILLAS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshparamount Villas Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Jcit, 208, Second Floor, Sikkha Range-76, Mansion Lsc, Savita New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aagcm6447E

272A(2)(g) (in ates deductees Rs.) A. B. C. D. E. F. G.* Q1 Form 30.07.2012 18.01.2013 172 161 12,45,000/- 16A Q2 Form 30.10.2012 15.02.2013 108 140 7,69,400/- 16A Q3 Form 30.01.2013 16.02.2013 17 129 1,83,124/- 16A Q4 Form 30.05.2013 18.06.2013 19 171 2,61,838/- 16A Total

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – XVII vs. DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Section 272A (2) (g) of the said Act for levying the penalty. The 2008:DHC:1912-DB filing of the annual TDS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX XVII vs. DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Section 272A (2) (g) of the said Act for levying the penalty. The 2008:DHC:1911-DB filing of the annual TDS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XVII vs. DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES P. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Section 272A (2) (g) of the said Act for levying the penalty. The 2008:DHC:1912-DB filing of the annual TDS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – XVII vs. DHIR GLOBAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.

Appeals are dismissed

Section 272A (2) (g) of the said Act for levying the penalty. The 2008:DHC:1911-DB filing of the annual TDS

EBNOY HOMES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 74(2), NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava

g) Before the insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A(1), section 200A did not provide for computation of fee payable u/s 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statements though the same was mandatorily leviable for the delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A

SUPREME BRAHMAPUTRA (JV),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC - TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

g) Before the insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A(1), section 200A did not provide for computation of fee payable u/s 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statements though the same was mandatorily leviable for the delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A

BRAHMAPUTRA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

g) Before the insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A(1), section 200A did not provide for computation of fee payable u/s 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statements though the same was mandatorily leviable for the delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A

DRAIPL-BRAHMAPUTRA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (JV),NEW DELHI vs. TDS, CPC , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

g) Before the insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A(1), section 200A did not provide for computation of fee payable u/s 234E of the Act at the time of processing of TDS statements though the same was mandatorily leviable for the delay in filing of TDS statements. In this sense, insertion of Clause (c) to section 200A