M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS statement in Form 26Q as per provisions of section 200(3) of the IT Act for the assessment year under consideration, the AO levied the fee for default in furnishing the statement while processing the statement under section 200A

SOCIAL WORK & RESEARCH CENTRE,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 200A. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the entire payment in question was to the non-residents and TDS

GEETA STAR HOTELS & RESORTS P LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 200A of the Act and henceforth levy of fees u/s 234E in the case is without authority.“ 2. The Coordinate Bench has earlier passed an order dated 17.4.2017 and thereafter, pursuant to misc. application filed by the assessee, the Bench has recalled the earlier order vide its order dated 21.8.2018 and hence, the present appeal has come

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. is having no discretion to levy or not to levy the penalty but it is mandatory once there is a default in furnishing the TDS statements on the part of the assessee. The ld DR has further contended that that Section 154 of the Act envisages amendment in intimation issued U/s 200A

SPECIAL JUDGE COURT SC/ST,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

200A. As the TDS return of the appellant has been processed on 04.10.2017, therefore I am of the considered view that adjustment made under section 200(A)(1)(c) in respect of the ITA 1086/JP/2019 3

RASHTRIYA MILITARY SCHOOL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

Section 200A of the Act (made effective from 1.6.2015). This clearly means that there was no mechanism of charging of fees prior to 3 ITA No. 988-995/JP/2019 Rashtriya Military School, Ajmer vs. ITO (TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O &M) PUSHKAR, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

200A(1)(c) of the Act. It is also evident that after Section 234E w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the assessee deductor who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M), SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

200A(1)(c) of the Act. It is also evident that after Section 234E w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the assessee deductor who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered a TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3

SHRI ANIL KUMAR MAHESHWARI,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the said levy and his findings are as under:- “I have gone through the order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions carefully. It is seen that from the intimation issued u/s 200A that the TDS statement for the 4th quarter of the F.Y 2014-15 was processed

SHRI UTTAM CHAND GANGWAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

3 Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal, Ajmer Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted.” 7. In the aforesaid decision, the TDS return (Form

M/S AJMER THERMOTECH PVT. LTD.,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

3 M/s Ajmer Thermotech Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad period prior to 01.06.2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. Hence, the demand raised by way of charging the fees under section 234E of the Act is not valid and the same is deleted.” 7. In the aforesaid decision, the TDS return (Form

GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARIA,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CPC) (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his TDS return 24Q for the Quarter Third of F.Y. 2015-16. The assessee received intimation u/s 200A of the IT Act from ld. DCIT-CPC TDS, amounting of Rs. 32,700/- on A/c of late filing fees under section

AEN (O&M) AVVNL, DANTA RAMGARH,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Section 200A(1) by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessee has an arguable case for those adjustment made by the AO in respect of the TDS quarterly statement of financial year 2013-14 and first quarter of financial year 2015-16. It is matter of the fact that the adjustment was made by the AO only while processing

AEN (O&M) AVVNL, NEEM KA THANA,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Section 200A(1) by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessee has an arguable case for those adjustment made by the AO in respect of the TDS quarterly statement of financial year 2013-14 and first quarter of financial year 2015-16. It is matter of the fact that the adjustment was made by the AO only while processing

AEN (O&M) AVVNL, KHATUSHYAMJI,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Section 200A(1) by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessee has an arguable case for those adjustment made by the AO in respect of the TDS quarterly statement of financial year 2013-14 and first quarter of financial year 2015-16. It is matter of the fact that the adjustment was made by the AO only while processing

AEN (O&M) AVVNL, KANWAT ,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Section 200A(1) by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessee has an arguable case for those adjustment made by the AO in respect of the TDS quarterly statement of financial year 2013-14 and first quarter of financial year 2015-16. It is matter of the fact that the adjustment was made by the AO only while processing

XEN (O&M) AVVNL, DANTA RAMGARH,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Section 200A(1) by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessee has an arguable case for those adjustment made by the AO in respect of the TDS quarterly statement of financial year 2013-14 and first quarter of financial year 2015-16. It is matter of the fact that the adjustment was made by the AO only while processing

AEN (O&M) AVVNL, KANWAT ,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Section 200A(1) by Finance Act 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Therefore, the assessee has an arguable case for those adjustment made by the AO in respect of the TDS quarterly statement of financial year 2013-14 and first quarter of financial year 2015-16. It is matter of the fact that the adjustment was made by the AO only while processing