BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section

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 statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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 statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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 statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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 statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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 statement. The proviso was inserted in Section 272A providing for no penalty under the said section will be imposed

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 statements. But, when Section 234E was inserted with effect from 1.7.2012 simultaneously, a second proviso was added under Section 272A

ASPANDIAR R. IRANI & GUSTAD R. IRANI,THANE vs. CIT (A)-1, THANE

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singh

272A(2) is not applicable as the same relates to return/ statement under section 133, 206 and 206C. The section 206 was in force only up to 31.3.2005 and therefore is not applicable in case of the assessee. The section 206 related to collection of tax and not TDS

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

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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)

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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)

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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)

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

M/S.BLUE STAR CONSTRUCTION CO.,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT , THANE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Blem/S Blue Star Construction Co. V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Near Shankar Mandir Tax Tds Raigad, Thane Opp. Shirke Plant Sh-54 Uran Panvel Road Tal., Uran Raigad – 400 702, Thane Pan: Aaffb3087E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri D.Y. Pandit Department By : Ms. Kavita P.Kaushik

272A of the Act on or after 01st day of July, 2012 for the failure referred to in clause (k) i.e. in respect of furnishing of copy of statements within the time specified in sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act for non-deduction of TDS

BHAVESH GHANSHYAM ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT(INTL TAX)-1,, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyal

TDS Certificate, but obtaining of such certificates and possession of the same by the applicant was neither required as per procedure nor as per law to file the return of income within time. It is further seen from the facts of the case that a letter bearing No. NMS2/ASHPA4344A/6311816 dated 18.12.2014 was issued to the applicant by the Compliance Management

PRANJALI ENTERPRISES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. THE ITO-5(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by assessee is dismissed being not maintainable

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Om Prakash Kantआअसं. 1523/मुं/2020 ("न. व. 2017-18) Pranjali Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 53, Anand Bhuvan, Banganga Road, Walkeshwar, Mumbai 400 006. Pan: Aaecp-7957-Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Income Tax Officer-5(2)(4), Room No.566, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent Mumbai- 400 020. अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Vimal Punmiya ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri B.K.Bagchi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2022 आदेश/ Order

TDS) in ITA No.130 to 135/Del/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 to 2015-16 decided on 19/06/2015 and in the case of Daulat Luthria Nanubhai Mension vs. ACIT in ITA No.4074/Mum/2015 for assessment year 2012-13 to contend that a direction can be given to CIT(A) to decide the stay application. 6. Per contra, Shri B.K.Bagchi representing the Department

TATA SKY LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T.(TDS) RG.3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the Revenue’s appeal stands

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

272A, a sum which shall not be less than Rs. 100, but which may extend to Rs. 200 for each day during which the failure continues. (c) According to the provisions of section 203A, it is obligatory for all persons responsible for deducting tax at source to obtain and quote the Tax-deduction Account Number (TAN) in the various challans

RAVIRAJ RELAMPADDU,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT 23(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deyand Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. 3. Brief facts are, while processing the TDS statement filed in Form no.26Q

VARAD FASHIIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act should not be levied in its case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 for non filing of quarterly TDS

VARAD FASHIIONS P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act should not be levied in its case for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 for non filing of quarterly TDS