AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

234E of the Act as there was no corresponding provisions in Section 200A of the Act relating to computation of fee and the same was introduced by Finance Act, 2015 by way of substitution of Clause (c) to (e) of Section 200A(1) by new Clause (c) to (f) of Section 200A(1). The relevant extract of the Memorandum

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: the Tribunal. 4. We would first take up ITA No. 1173/Mum/2024 [Financial Year 2012-13: Quarter 2/Form 27EQ] as the lead matter which has been preferred by the Assessee challenging the order, dated 2

234E of the Act as there was no corresponding provisions in Section 200A of the Act relating to computation of fee and the same was introduced by Finance Act, 2015 by way of substitution of Clause (c) to (e) of Section 200A(1) by new Clause (c) to (f) of Section 200A(1). The relevant extract of the Memorandum

AGRAWAL DISTILLERIES PVT LTD,INDORE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

Appeal are allowed:

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

234E of the Act as there was no corresponding provisions in Section 200A of the Act relating to computation of fee and the same was introduced by Finance Act, 2015 by way of substitution of Clause (c) to (e) of Section 200A(1) by new Clause (c) to (f) of Section 200A(1). The relevant extract of the Memorandum

ALI FAZAL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD 1(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed, with the above directions

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla& Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarali Fazal Income Tax Bungalow No.4, Udadhi Officer Tds Ward Tarang Society, Juhu Tara Vs. 1(1)(1) Road, Juhu, Mumbai Room No. 413, 4Th 400049 Floor, Cumbala Hill Mtnl Te Building, Peddar Road, Dr G Deshmukh Marg, Cumbana Hill Mumbai – 400026 Pan/Gir No. Aampf8506G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ashish Thakurdesai & Shri Aditya Desai Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22.01.2026

TDS Ward 1(1)(1), Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], under sections 201(1), 201(1A) and 234E

ITO(TDS)-2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SASHWAT ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the CO is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer (Tds) – V/S. Sashwat Energy Private 2(2)(1) बनाम Limited, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Building, 10Th Floor, Universal Cumballa Hill, Mumbai – Majestic Lokhande Marg, 400 026, Maharashtra Chembur West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं./C.O. No.273/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4279/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2021-22) Sashwat Energy Private V/S. Income Tax Officer (Tds) – Limited, बनाम 2(2)(1), 3Rd Floor, Mtnl 10Th Floor, Universal Majestic Building, Cumballa Hill, Lokhande Marg, Chembur Mumbai – 400 026, West, Mumbai – 400 043, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Mums95080G Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

1) on account of payment of taxes by the such resident, the interest under section 201(1A)(i) shall be payable from the date on which such tax was deductible to the date of furnishing of return of income by such resident payee. 8. We restore this issue to the file of the AO with the direction that the assessee

M/S. HALO TECHNOLOGIES AND TRAINING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- TDS (CPC), GHAZIABAD

Bench: It.

1,46,000/- under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the fact the provisions of section 200A were amended by the Finance Act, 2015 to enable the fee computation payable u/s 234E at the time of processing of TDS

BALAJI GRAPHICS ART PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CPC GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

1) is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Ld.AO while processing the TDS statements/returns in the present set of appeals for the period prior to 01-06-2015, was not empowered to charge fees under section 234E

M/S. LIFELINE MEDICARE HOSPITALS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

section 234E can be said as without any authority of law and the same are quashed and set aside to that extent. 8. By respectfully following the above said decision, the impugned notice u/s. 200A of the Act for levy of fees u/s. 234E of the Act for belated filing of the TDS statement prior to 01.04.2015 are hereby

STRONGBUILT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the In the facts and the circumstances of the case

STRONGBUILD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

1. THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION THE ORDER BAD, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the In the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the In the facts and the circumstances of the case

M/S. BRANDMARK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. WARD 12(1) (3) /AO NFAC, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer/CPC TRACES/Authorities below has erred in levying the late fees/penalty u/s 234E of the I T Act amounting to Rs. 5,41,520/- and particularly when the matter is sub-judice which is wholly wrong and against the provisions of Income Tax Act and rules made

BOMBAY MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. TDS WARD 1(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

234E of the Act and failed to appreciate that, the Appellant has already filed the TDS statement as required u/s 200(3) of the Act. 11)The reason assigned by the Learned ITO(TDS) for making the above addition are wrong, against the facts, contrary to the provision of law, evidence on record, without observing natural justice and without following

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

234E of the IT. Act, 1961 is automatic, compulsory, and mandatory, which comes in to play in case of default in furnishing the statements under sub section 3 of section 200 of the Act. This provision basically acts as facilitator to comply with the terms of section 200(3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

234E of the IT. Act, 1961 is automatic, compulsory, and mandatory, which comes in to play in case of default in furnishing the statements under sub section 3 of section 200 of the Act. This provision basically acts as facilitator to comply with the terms of section 200(3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. TDS-CPC , UTTER PRADESH

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

234E of the IT. Act, 1961 is automatic, compulsory, and mandatory, which comes in to play in case of default in furnishing the statements under sub section 3 of section 200 of the Act. This provision basically acts as facilitator to comply with the terms of section 200(3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

234E of the IT. Act, 1961 is automatic, compulsory, and mandatory, which comes in to play in case of default in furnishing the statements under sub section 3 of section 200 of the Act. This provision basically acts as facilitator to comply with the terms of section 200(3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved

ABHINAV EDUCATION SOCIETY,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC,TDS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri N K Choudhry, Jm

1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective Asst. Year prior

AMMAR ABDULLA ARSIWALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT)-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Ammar Abdulla Arsiwala, Ito(It)-1(1)(2), 1St Floor, Room No. 8, 18Th Floor, Mohammed Chambers, Vs. Air India Building, Sir J.J. Road, Byculla, Nariman Point, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Amtpa1297L (Appellant) (Respondent)

1) of the Act and also charged interest u/s. 201(1A) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 17,11,861/-. The AO also levied fee u/s. 234E of the Act for late filing of TDS return. The assessee filed appeal challenging the demand and interest raised u/s. 201/201(1A) of the Act before the Ld.CIT

AARYA SARWATE,THANE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-1, THANE, THANE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankaraarya Sarwate, V/S. Income Tax Officer, Tds – 1, 704, Ai Basant Kavy बनाम Thane, Qureshi Mansion, Adhara Complex, Kolshet Gokhale Road, Thane – Road, Dhokali, Mumbai – 400602, Maharashtra 400 067, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Pned15498A Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

1) and 201(1A) and also charged interest u/s 234E of the Act. 4. The assessee filed an appeal against the said order before the ld.CIT(A) contesting the action of the TDS authority who noted that the appeal filed was delayed by nine months. According to the impugned order, on perusal of Form-35, it was noticed that order