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(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

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(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

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(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

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(2)(k) of the Act were simultaneously introduced. He further referred to the provisions of section 200A of the Act which were introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2010 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 for furnishing of TDS

NKC PROJECTS (P) LTD.,GURGAON vs. JCIT,RANGE-76, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh

section 272A(2)(K) of the Act. 2.1 That delay caused in filing of the e- TDS returns was purely

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

K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) vi) C.K. Gangadharan vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC) vii) CIT vs Swapnaroy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (Allahabad) 4. Before we request Hon’ble Tribunal to take to elaborate discussions on the issue, it would be beneficial

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

K Khullar vs DCIT [2009] 116 ITD 301(Delhi) v) Dwarkadas Kesardeo Morarka vs CIT [1962] 44 ITR 529 (SC) vi) C.K. Gangadharan vs CIT [2008] 304 ITR 61 (SC) vii) CIT vs Swapnaroy [2011] 331 ITR 367 (Allahabad) 4. Before we request Hon’ble Tribunal to take to elaborate discussions on the issue, it would be beneficial

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

2)(k) which provided for the penalty of Rs.100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statements. But, when section 234E was inserted with effect from 1-7-2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under section 272A

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

2)(k) which provided for the penalty of Rs.100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statements. But, when section 234E was inserted with effect from 1-7-2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under section 272A

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

2)(k) which provided for the penalty of Rs.100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statements. But, when section 234E was inserted with effect from 1-7-2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under section 272A

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

2)(k) which provided for the penalty of Rs.100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statements. But, when section 234E was inserted with effect from 1-7-2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under section 272A

PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishiita Nos.5865/Del/2016, 5866/Del/2016, 5867/Del/2016, 5868/Del/2016, 5869/Del/2016 Asstt. Years: 2013-14, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2014-15, 2014-15

2)(k) which provided for the penalty of Rs.100 per day for each day of default in filing TDS statements. But, when section 234E was inserted with effect from 1-7-2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under section 272A

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-1 vs. M/S ADMA SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INFOVISION INFORMATION SERVICES PVT.LTD.)

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

TDS and penalty proceedings were referred to the Additional CIT, Range-50 for levy of penalty under Section 272A(2)(c) and 272A(2)(k

UCO BANK, PATIALA HOUSE BRANCH,NEW DELHI vs. JCIT, RANGE- 78, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

TDS statements within the time prescribed under section 200(3) of the Act, initiated proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 272A(2)(k

GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,BHIWANI vs. JCIT, TDS RANGE, KARNAL

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(K) of the Act in the instant case by the AO for late filing of TDS return. We find the period of default for late filing of TDS return actually relate to Financial Year 2007-08. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bathline India Pvt. Ltd. Delhi vs ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

GOVT. SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL,BHIWANI vs. JCIT, TDS RANGE, KARNAL

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

272A(2)(K) of the Act in the instant case by the AO for late filing of TDS return. We find the period of default for late filing of TDS return actually relate to Financial Year 2007-08. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bathline India Pvt. Ltd. Delhi vs ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

TDS return specified in Section 200(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) in first appeal also declined any relief. The relevant operative paragraph of the order of the CIT(A) I.T.A. No.6959 & 6960/Del/2019 4 is reproduced hereunder: “4.1 All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant pertain to imposition of penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k

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

TDS return specified in Section 200(3) of the Act. The CIT(A) in first appeal also declined any relief. The relevant operative paragraph of the order of the CIT(A) I.T.A. No.6959 & 6960/Del/2019 4 is reproduced hereunder: “4.1 All the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant pertain to imposition of penalty u/s. 272A(2)(k