MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

TDS statement with in stipulated time. The Assessee moved an applications under section 154 of the Act which were also rejected by the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that no fee could be levied under section 234E of the Act while passing intimation under section 200A

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

TDS statements for determining the amount payable or refundable to the deductor. It further took note that however, as section 234E of the Act was inserted after the insertion of section 200A

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

TDS statements by deductor would result in perennial problems being faced by Department while processing return of income and it would result in financial burden to Government namely on account of late payment of refund interest- Held, yes- Whether since section 234E levies a fee to regularize said late filing, it could not be hied that section 234E suffered from

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

TDS), Udaipur. 2. The assessee has filed an application under section 154 of the Act against the order under section 200A

MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amount. Accordingly, fee under section 234E of the Act was charged. The assessee contested the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act by filing appeals before the first appellate authority. However, the appeals were dismissed. 5. On a conjoint reading of section 200A

MADHUSUDAN MARBLES PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

TDS amount. Accordingly, fee under section 234E of the Act was charged. The assessee contested the levy of fee under section 234E of the Act by filing appeals before the first appellate authority. However, the appeals were dismissed. 5. On a conjoint reading of section 200A

RAJESH KUMAR NAHAR,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

200A of the Act. In light of the same, in our view, the provisions of section 194-IA are not applicable in the instant case. Given that the provisions of section 194-IA are not attracted, there is no basis for levy of interest and late fee under section 234E of the Act and the demand so raised is hereby

DALPAT SINGH NANECHA,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, BHILWARA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

200A of the Act. In light of the same, in our view, the provisions of section 194-IA are not applicable in the instant case. Given that the provisions of section 194-IA are not attracted, there is no basis for levy of interest and late fee under section 234E of the Act and the demand so raised is hereby

SIDDHARTH AGARWAL,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blesiddharth Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of 28, Polo Ground, Income Tax, Cpc, Tds Udaipur - 313001 Udaipur Pan No. Akgpa 4183 N Assessee By Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate (Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 28.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal [Hereinafter Referred To As Cit(A)] Udaipur – 2 Dated 10.06.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2015-16 Challenging Therein The Sustaining The Levy Of Fee U/S 234A Of The Act By The Ao By View Of Rectification Order Dated 12.06.2022 Passed U/S 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 28,600/- & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- Totalling To Rs. 44,616/-, Although The Amended Law Was Not Applicable For The Year Under Consideration Because It Was Applicable Only With Effect From 01.06.2015. Asst. Year: 2015-16 2 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Appellant Assessee Filed A Rectification Application U/S 154 Of The Act Before The Acit, Cpc-Tds, Vaishali Ghajiabad For Tds In Form 27Q For Financial Year 2014- 15 With Respect To Quarter 4, Subsequently Rectification Order Was Passed On 12.06.2020 Determining Late Filing Fee/Penalty Of Rs. 28,600/- U/S 234A & Interest Of Rs. 16,016/- U/S 220 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Which Has Been Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A). Ignoring The Fact That Ao Did Not Have Power To Change Fee U/S 234E While Processing Tds Returns & Hence In Absence Of Enabling Provisions, Levy Of Fee Could Not Be Deducted In The Course Of Intimation Issued U/S 200A Prior To 01.06.2015. The Ld. Ar Prayed For Deleting The Fee & Interest Levied By The Acit, Cpc.

TDS deducted was related to the period prior to the date of enactment of i.e. 01.06.2015. Hon’ble Karnatka High court in the case of Fatheraj Singvi Vs. Union of India, (2016) 73 taxman.com 252(Kar.) had laid down the proposition that the amendment to Section 200A

LAKECITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E r.w.s 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’), since there was delay in filing the TDS