MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees payable under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued after insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees payable under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued after insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees payable under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued after insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees payable under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued after insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees payable under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued after insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1

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 under section 200A of the Act. In other words, the Assessing Officer is empowered to charge fees payable under section 234E of the Act in the intimation issued after insertion of clause (c) to section 200A(1

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.”

200A of the Income-tax Act, in sub-section (1), for clauses (c) to (e), the following clauses shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2015, namely:— “(c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund

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 statements for F.Y. 2012-13 were belatedly filed on 23.07.2013 and 16.10.2013 for 2nd, 3rd & 4th quarter. The said statements were processed and order under section 200A of the Act was passed levying a late fee under section 234E of the Act of Rs. 1

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 for respective assessment years prior to 01.06.2015. 6. Following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Sree Ayyappa Educational Charitable Trust (supra), we hold that since the impugned intimation give by the ACIT, CPC is in violation of Section 200A so far Asst. Year: 2015-16 4 as the period prior

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 statements. 5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal in limine for the reason that there was delay in filing the appeals. Contention of the assessee for explaining