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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

Section 234E of the Act is not punitive in nature but a fee which is a fixed charge for the extra service which the department has to prove due to the late filing of the TDS

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

234E can be made under Clause © of Sub-section 1 of Section 200A. As per TDS return of the appellant

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)

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 case, the principal TDS

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, only because assessee could not place on record registration certificate issued u/s 12AA of the Act, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied. Further, Rs.1,58,000/- is paid by the assessee is fee for late filing of TDS return u/s 234E

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

234E Under clause c of subsection 1 of 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

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)

234E Under clause of sub 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

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1026/JPR/2025 निर्धरणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2016-17 Agrasen Medical Relief & Research Society Central Spine, Sector -7, Vidhyadhr Nagar Jaipur - 302 039 (Raj) बनाम Vs. अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAATA 7540F The ITO (E) Ward - 1 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby :Shri P.C.Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudh

section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, only because assessee could not place on record registration certificate issued u/s 12AA of the Act, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied. Further, Rs.1,58,000/- is paid by the assessee is fee for late filing of TDS return u/s 234E

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)

234E Under clause ( c) subsection 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 that applicant has not receivd the notice by post as well as by email. After ITO demand notice the applicant checked income tax site

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

234E Under clause c of subsection 1 of 200A. 1. The assesse has filed an appeal with Ld CIT(appeals) Ajmer which was technically delayed . The delay in filing the appeal was due to the fact that the appellant/applicant did not receive any intimation from department, On knowledge from portal the assesee comes to know and he filed an appeal