RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed of, for statistical purposes

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

200A, 201(1) or 234E, as the case may be, stands fully paid or satisfactory arrangements for payment of the principal demand under these sections have been made. The Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or Director General of Income-tax may also impose any other condition as deemed fit for the said reduction or waiver of interest.” In the present

AEN (VIG)-I AVVNL JHUNJHUNU, SIKAR,JHUNJHUNU vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

TDS return at source within time. That when the TAX had been deposited in time, there could not have any object or intention as the part of assesse not to submit the return in time. 7. The ld CIT (APPEALS) erred in not following the provision of Section 200A in sub section (1

AVVNL AEN CSD-II,,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC(TDS), , GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 1 of 200A. 1. The assesse has Filed an appeal with Ld CIT (appeals) JAIPUR which was technically delayed. The delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact non/delay service of order and thereafter incumbent officer got transferred and we did not find any notice or not about relating to the said matter hence being unaware

XEN (O&M=M) AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.,AJMER vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

1 july 2012. It states that "Amount of late fee shall be paid before delivering a TDS statement". It means that any late fee should have fee deposited just at the time of delivering TDS statements & not later than this The authorized TIN-NSDL centre which accepted the TDS statements also accepted there without late fee, as well

AJMER VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDHUT NITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

1. That Ld. CIT(A) has passed the appeal order for not the assessment year/financial year appealed for but has taken wrongly A.Y/F.Y. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of Rs. 58100/- is bad in law. 3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts