CURRENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BASANT VIHAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR , BABA SIDHNATH BAHWAN

200A;]\n(d)[ amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section\n206CB.] [Inserted by Finance Act, 2015 (No. 20 of 2015), dated\n14.5.2015.]\n[(1-A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any\nproceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in\nsub-section (1), the authority passing such order

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

3 4 5 Authorized Form Type Mode of A.Y To be used A.O furnishing Form exclusively for defaults under section Field 26A Paper Up to & 201(1A) Assessing including 2016- and/or Officer 17 40(a)(ia) (TDS)[1] CPC-TDS 26A Electronic 12[2] Up to & 200A

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 200A OF IT ACT 1961 Levying late filing Fee of Rs 5600/- U/s 234 by ACIT, CPC(TDS) GHAJIYABAD, (TDS return Relates to 24Q 2nd Qtr. Financial year 2012-13. 5. As per provision of Sec. 234 E late fee cannot be recovered for TDS statements which were due for F.Y 2012-13 as well on TDS statements late

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

200A. 1.The assesse has Filed an appeal with Ld CIT(appeals) Jaipur which was mannualy filed against the Order of DCIT CPC(TDS) for levy of late Fees of Rs16780/- For financial Year 24q2-2013-14. AEN (VIG)-I, AVVNL, JHUNJHUNU, SIKAR VS DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD 2. The Ld CIT(appeals) has erred in dismissing Appeal as not admitted

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)

TDS deptt. It self accepted these without late fee. there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment inrespect of the statement filed by the assessee with regard to tax deducted at source by levying fee under Section234E of the Act 6. In the facts & circumstances of the case the learned A.O. erred in imposing

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)

TDS deptt. It self accepted these without late fee. there was no enabling provision in Section 200A of the Act for making adjustment inrespect of the statement filed 3

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

TDS commission for (refer Cases). Pages 9 to 13 of paper book of AR. there is an Audit objection Thirdly, The Ld DR submitted that according to the CBDT Circular, No 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012,the assesee has to be disallowance u/s 37 and the AO accordingly made disallowance Rs.5,37,270/-. Further, the Ld DR submitted that

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)

3. Considering the humanitarian crisis faced during the peak pandemic period, wherein staff, citizens, and public institutions were severely affected, we earnestly appeal for a compassionate and equitable approach. That the interest levied under section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 may kindly be waived in full. 4. The TDS department adjusted the demand of interest from the amount

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon

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

3. Any other matter with prior permission of the chair.” 5. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records are that in this case and intimation u/s 200A/206CB of the Act was passed on 12.03.2014 therein raising at demand of Rs. 58,100/- as per provisions of section 234E of the Act. The said intimation was served upon