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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

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]

2)(k) provided for the penalty of Rs.100/- per day for each day of default in filing TDS statement and such provision also came to be inserted with effect from 1.4.2005. On 1.4.2010, Section 200A

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

TDS statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A(2) with effect from 1.7.2012. [para 17]” 4.1 Similar is decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of United Metals vs. ITO reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala). The ld. AR also relied

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

TDS statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A(2) with effect from 1.7.2012. [para 17]” 4.1 Similar is decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of United Metals vs. ITO reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala). The ld. AR also relied

KAUSHALYA INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 2(1), TDS,, KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.178 To 180/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16 Kaushalya Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd…………..……Appellant Hb-170, Sector Iii, Salt Lake, Bidhan Nagar Ib Market, S.O Salt Lake, North 24 Parganas, W.B – 700106. [Pan: Aacck1581F] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Tds, Kolkata………….…………………….....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Sha, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 13, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 13, 2026 Order Per Bench: This Is A Batch Of Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl/Jcit (A), Panaji [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) In Appeal Nos. Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2011-12/10384523, Nfac/2013- 14/10384527 All Dated 19.11.2025, For The Assessment Years 2013-14 To 2015-16 Respectively.

TDS statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A(2) with effect from 1.7.2012. [para 17]” 4.1 Similar is decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of United Metals vs. ITO reported in [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala). The ld. AR also relied

SUSHIL KUMAR BERLIA,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O., TDS, WARD - 5(2), SILIGURI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubey

TDS return for Quarter 2 for the FY 2012-13, original return was filed on 27.07.2013 and processed on 12.09.2013 and it is also the definite case of the assessee that the same was revised and rectified u/s 154 of the Act on 26.01.2024 wherein levy of fee u/s 234E of the Act @ Rs. 200/- per day to the tune

SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

TDS ignoring the overriding effect of provisions of DTAA on the provisions of the Income-tax Act including section 206AA of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The ld.AR submits that the issue in hand in respect of short deduction of payments of TDS/late payment interest in respect of non-resident payees relating to quarter

MAITHAN ALLOYS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (IT), WD-2(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

200A. The AO raised a total demand of Rs.3,10,890/- which was bifurcated as Rs. 28,610 for Qtr 1, Rs. 1,17,340/- for Qtr 2 and Rs.1,64,940/- for Qtr 3 respectively for A.Y. 2011-12. The appellant had made payment to non-residents as follows and deducted the TDS @ 10% in all the cases

SREI ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENT MANAGERS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

2). In our opinion, the assessee therefore cannot be held liable to deduct tax at higher of the rates prescribed in section 206AA in case of payments made to non­resident persons having taxable income in India in spite of their failure to furnish the Permanent Account Numbers. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to this Special Bench in the negative

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.253/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 National Insurance Co. Ltd...................................................................……Appellant 3, Middleton Street, Kolkata- 700071. [Pan: Aaacn9967E] Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds,Ghaziabad, Up...…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sanjoy Bhattacharya, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 29, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Was Wrong In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Against The Intimation Dated 02/06/2019 Issued U/S 200A For The Financial Year 2018-19 (Relevant For The Assessment Year 2019- 20). 2. That Without Prejudice To The Contention Raised In Ground No. 1 Above, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Was Wrong In Stating In The Appellate Order That The Appeal Of The Appellant Had Allegedly Related

2 & 3, hence they are decided altogether. The appellant has challenged levy of fee u/s 234E in the order u/s 200A. I have carefully considered the grounds raised by the appellant and the submission of the appellant. I have also gone through the order u/s 200A passed by the ACIT CPC CELL TDS, Ghaziabad. The provisions of Section

GAUTAM BODHAK ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s. 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section

GAUTAM BODHAK ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s. 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section

GAUTAM BODHAK ,HOWRAH vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

2. The issue involved in this appeal is as to whether late filing fee u/s 234E of the IT Act has rightly been charged in the intimation dated 10.11.2013 issued u/s. 200A of the Act while processing the TDS returns/statement, the enabling clause (c) having been inserted in the section