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
ITA 179/KOL/2026[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Apr 2026AY 2014-2015
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.
Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 206C(3)Section 234ESection 250Section 271(1)(a)Section 271HSection 272A(2)(k)
271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section 271H.
Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section
