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

k) to section 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

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

k) to section 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

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

k) to section 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

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

k) to section 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

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

condonation of delay. 6. Further, when the appeal filed by the assessee is against the 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

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s 201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s 201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be "assessee in default

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

delay. Accordingly, the demand on account of 234E is cancelled. 8. Similarly interest u/s 220(2) cannot be levied when fee u/s 234E itself is not leviable. In so far as charging of interest u/s 201(IA), the same cannot be charged as admittedly no order u/s 201(1) has been passed holding the assessee to be "assessee in default

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

272A(2)(k) of the IT Act imposed by the Addl. CIT Range 49 New Delhi ignoring the fact that the appellant did not willfully delayed the filling of e-TDS Returns. 2. In ignoring the fact that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee in complying with the due dates of filing of the e-TDS Returns

AMBIENCE DEVELOPERS & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

272A(2)(k) of the IT Act imposed by the Addl. CIT Range 49 New Delhi ignoring the fact that the appellant did not willfully delayed the filling of e-TDS Returns. 2. In ignoring the fact that there was reasonable cause which prevented the assessee in complying with the due dates of filing of the e-TDS Returns

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

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

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

condonation of delay, however, the ld. CIT(A) has judiciously adjudicated the issue on merits and held that since the AO has levied late fee u/s 234E only after 01.06.2015 vide intimation dated 03.04.2018, the claim of the assessee for the exemption from levy of late fee was liable to be dismissed. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed appeal before

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1938 days to 2008 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1938 days to 2008 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order

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

2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel, referring to the order of the CIT(A), submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all these appeals by not condoning the delay which are ranging from 1357 days to 2065 days. Referring to the copy of the order passed u/s 154 by the CPC Cell, he submitted that the order