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

33. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS

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

33. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS

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

33. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS

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

33. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS

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

Appeals of the assessees are allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T- IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India& Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

MILSESTONE SPACE,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, MUMBAI

Appeals of the assessees are allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T- IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India& Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

MILESTONE ESTATE,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

Appeals of the assessees are allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T- IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India& Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

MILESTONE SPACE,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

Appeals of the assessees are allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T- IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India& Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

SANJAY SATISHCHANDRA DUTT,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

Appeals of the assessees are allowed as above

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663-2674/2015(T- IT) & Ors in Sri Fatheraj Singhvi & Ors Vs. Union of India& Ors has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETINGS INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3) , MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

DCIT (OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL ENERGIES MARKETING INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

33,583 154 of the 22,471,662 on which TDS having a TDS act dated and TDS default under default under 31/12/2019 default section

SAIGAL SEA TRADE,MUMBAI vs. CIT -18, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Saigal Sea Trade, Cit-18, J.V. House, 02Nd Floor, D.S. Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ Babrekar Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400028 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaafs6920K

TDS. Plea was also raised that on the issue of commission, the Ld. Assessing Officer examined and allowed. It was fairly agreed by the Ld. counsel that both these issues were not discussed in the assessment order by the Ld. Assessing Officer but hastily 3 M/s Trancfex Studios Pvt Ltd. added that the assessment order was passed after examining

K D LITE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 1(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals filed by the assessee\nare allowed

section 194A of the IT Act.\nBeing aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed\nappeal before Ld. CIT(A), however, the same was decided\nagainst the assesse.\nAggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred\nappeal before us and the only ground raised by the\nassessee is with regard to challenging the order of Ld.\nCIT(A) in upholding