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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,NOIDA vs. ACIT (TDS), NOIDA

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihcl Technologies Ltd, Acit(Tds), Plot No. 3A, Tower 6, 14Th Floor, Vs. Noida Sector-126, Noida Pan: Aaach1645P (Appellant) (Respondent)

200 of the Act to allow the deductor to file correction statements. Consequently. it is also proposed to amend provisions of section 200A of the Act for enabling processing of correction statement filed. The existing provisions of section 201(1) of the Act provide for passing of an order deeming a payer as assessee in default if he does

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

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

condoning the delay in filing the appeals was also filed as referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. Referring to the order passed by the CIT(A), the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the order of Assessing Officer was not passed under section 234E of the Act but was passed under section 200A

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -7 vs. SUMITOMO CORPORATION INDIA (P) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

200 of WP November 2018 (undated) Annexure P- 28.12.2018 Annexure P - 9 on pg. 320 of WP 30.12.2018 Annexure P - 9 on pg. 224 of WP 25.12.2018 Annexure P-11 on pg. 294 of WP Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MICROSOFT INDIA ( R & D) PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

200 of WP November 2018 (undated) Annexure P- 28.12.2018 Annexure P - 9 on pg. 320 of WP 30.12.2018 Annexure P - 9 on pg. 224 of WP 25.12.2018 Annexure P-11 on pg. 294 of WP Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6 vs. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

200 of WP November 2018 (undated) Annexure P- 28.12.2018 Annexure P - 9 on pg. 320 of WP 30.12.2018 Annexure P - 9 on pg. 224 of WP 25.12.2018 Annexure P-11 on pg. 294 of WP Digitally Signed By:KAMLESH KUMAR Signing Date:02.09.2024 17:04:21 Signature Not Verified ITA 52/2023 & other connected matters Page

BATHLINE INDIA (PVT.) LTD.,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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

BATHLINE INDIA (P) LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision

ANJANI TECHNOPLAST LIMITED.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT - TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

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

200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability as well as the charging section for levy of fees in case of violation of statutory liability) were in effect much earlier from the date of insertion of 200A(3) which is merely a mechanical provision