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

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

section 234E, which is levied for each day during which the default continues, is upheld for the period 01.06.2015 to the date of actual filing of the TDS statement and the balance late filing fees so levied is hereby deleted. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 9. In the result, this appeal of the assessee

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

234E. He has not only failed to consider and appreciate the explanation given by the appellant in respect of the bonafide explanation on the ground of sufficient reason/genuine cause with proper documents and evidence in 2 ITA 964/JP/2019_ Govt. Secondary School Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS respect of the section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

234E /271H dated 28.01.2019. In the instant case, once the assessee is in receipt of PAN and has not deducted TDS, it has complied with the first statutory obligation cast upon him and the assessee cannot be penalized for non-deduction of TDS. The provisions of section 40(a)(ia) which are deeming fiction relating to non-deduction of 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

2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the application of provisions of Section 234E by the Assessing Officer (TDS

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

2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the application of provisions of Section 234E by the Assessing Officer (TDS

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

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 22nd July, Shri Uttam Chand Gangwal, Ajmer Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad 2015 for which the due date was 15th May, 2015. The TDS return was processed and the ACIT, TDS issued an intimation

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

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its TDS return in Form No. 24Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 12th M/s Ajmer Thermotech Pvt. Ltd., Ajmer Vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad September, 2015 for which the due date was 15th May, 2015. The TDS return was processed and ACIT, TDS issued an intimation

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

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his TDS return in Form No. 26Q for the quarter ended 31st March, 2015 on 23rd September, 2015 for which the due date was 15th May, 2015. The TDS return was processed and the ACIT, TDS issued an intimation dated 26th September, 2015 U/s 200A

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

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 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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

2. As per provision of Sec. 234 E late fee cannot be recovered for TDS statements which were due for F.Y 2011-12 as well on TDS statements late fee cannot be recovered for F.Y 12-13 if not collected at the time of delivering TDS statements to the deptt. Provision of Sec. 234 E has been made applicant with

TEHSILDAR, BARI,DHOULPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the all the assessees are allowed

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 statements. Hence from both the decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, the issue of power of imposing late fee is not decided