BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

BHASKAR ROY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TDS 1(2), KOLKATA

In the result, petition fails and is dismissed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

PASSPORT JEANS PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

penalty for default in filing TDS statement and also for furnishing of incorrect information in such TDS statement. The proviso

M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CC-3(2), KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

TDS & TCS and such interest being of compensatory in nature and not penal in nature since there is separate provision for imposing penalty

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S SALARPURIA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Manish Borad)

TDS & TCS and such interest being of compensatory in nature and not penal in nature since there is separate provision for imposing penalty

JANARDAN NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. JCIT,(TDS), RANGE-57, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1822/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Janardan Nirman Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-1(1), Burdwan [Pan: Aaccj 0540 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty order passed by the JCIT(TDS), Range-57, Kolkata[ in short the ld AO] under section 272A(2)(k)/274

RAIGANJ CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. D,C,I.T., CIRCLE - 2, JALPAIGURI, JALPAIGURI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

penalty of ₹1,18,472/- for non-deduction of TDS under section 194-I of the Act though TDS was actually

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

penalty levied u/s. 271C of the Act for non- deduction of TDS, the question to initiate penalty itself arises only

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. DCIT, (TDS), CIR-59, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

penalty levied u/s. 271C of the Act for non- deduction of TDS, the question to initiate penalty itself arises only

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

penalty levied u/s. 271C of the Act for non- deduction of TDS, the question to initiate penalty itself arises only

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

penalty levied u/s. 271C of the Act for non- deduction of TDS, the question to initiate penalty itself arises only

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

penalty levied u/s. 271C of the Act for non- deduction of TDS, the question to initiate penalty itself arises only

HALDIA MUNICIPALITY,MIDNAPORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 59(TDS), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A. No. 1109/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 &

penalty levied u/s. 271C of the Act for non- deduction of TDS, the question to initiate penalty itself arises only