LATE SHRI JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted

LATE JAYESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted

LATE SHRI JAYEESH THAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted

LATE JAYESH THAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, WARD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted

LAWMEN CONCEPTS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CPC-TDS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted

NATIONAL LAMINATE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. CPC (TDS), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

TDS within the time prescribed u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted

CORNERVIEW CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 9TDS) - CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

TDS statement within the time prescribed in sub–section (3) of section 200 of the Act. Whereas, sub–section (3

SHUBHAM SPACES,THANE vs. CIT APPEAL, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed and CPC, TDS is directed to delete the demand raised under section 234E of the Act along with section 220(2) of the Act

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS returns intimating the tax deducted at source from various payments made in each of the quarter, as per section 200(3

SPRING TIME CLUBS & HOSPITALITY SERVICES P.LTD,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Sprigtime Clubs & Hospitality Assessing Officer, Tds Ward Services Pvt. Ltd. Rani Mansion, Murbad Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, Sprig Avenue, Club Road Kalyan (W), 421301 Kalyan (W) 421301 Pan – Aaocs9107M Appellant Respondent

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section 234E

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section time

DISHA DISTRIBUTORS,MUMBAI vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section time

ASIAN PIPES & PROFILES P. LTD,AMBERNATH vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by different assessees for different quarters relating to different years are allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Garg

3) to section 200 of the Act, under which the deductor is to furnish TDS statements. However, as section time

BABITA MALKANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm)

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200

SODEXO SVC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS)-2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

TDS within the time prescribed under section 200 of the Act. Therefore, the assessee will be covered by clause (i) of section (3

BHASKAR KRISHNA SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200

BHOJA VITTAL SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CPC TDS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200

MEDICAL ENGINEERS INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TS) CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200

KAPOOR GLASS (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CPC, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200

KASH REALTORS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO TDS 1(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200

ROHA DYECHEM P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year: 2013-14

3) of the Act. It has therefore been contended that the AO(TDS) has rightly exercised his jurisdiction while making adjustment of the fees leviable under section 234E for non compliance/delay in filing the TDS statements as provided under section 200