SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

234E, it is clear that a fee is sought to be levied inter alia on a person who fails to deliver or cause to be delivered the TDS return/statements within the prescribed time in sub-section (3

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 of Rs. 28,320/- as provided under section 234E

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.”

3 Social Work & Research Centre, Jaipur. the department does not arise only because the assessee did not file the quarterly statement of TDS. He has further contended that the assessee deducted the TDS in time and also deposited the same with the Government account which is not in dispute and, therefore, the levy of fee under section 234E

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS return u/s 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) without appreciating the facts and circumstances 2 Geeta Star Hotels & Resorts P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT-CPC, Ghaziabad of the case. The CIT(A) ought to have directed to waive the said fees. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in adjudicating an issue

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

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 section 234E of the Act states that it shall be paid before delivering a TDS statement. It means

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty levied in 3 cases is hereby directed to be deleted subject to verification of payment of taxes along with fee and interest

234E. 2 ITA No. 170-173/JP/2018 M/s World Trade Park Limited, Jaipur Vs ACIT, TDS, Jaipur Thus on these facts of the case the assessee prevented with reasonable cause and therefore no penalty u/s 271H r/w section 273B should have been levied. The assessee therefore, prays that penalty levied for each Qr. Separately for late filing of form

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

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

234E can be made under clause (c) of Sub-section 1 of Section 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

234E was not conferred until amendment was brought by Finance Act, 2015 in 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), SIKAR

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

TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act, shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of Rs. 200/- for everyday during which the failure continues. It is also evident that aggrieved by the provision of Section 234E

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

TDS statement(s) within the time prescribed in the provisions of Section 200(3)/206C(3) of the Act, shall be liable to pay, by way of fee, a sum of Rs. 200/- for everyday during which the failure continues. It is also evident that aggrieved by the provision of Section 234E

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

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

TDS return of the appellant has become has been processed on 18.09.2015, therefore I am of the considered view that adjustment made under section 200(A)(1)(c) in respect of the fee levied u/s 234E is valid and in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 4. During the course of hearing

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

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

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 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

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 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