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

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

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

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

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

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

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

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

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

200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. However, various regulations and the statutory provisions in this regard point out that undoubtedly, the responsibility of the deductor was to deposit the tax deducted at source in time and if not so, then with interest and consequently, where the tax was not paid

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

200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. However, various regulations and the statutory provisions in this regard point out that undoubtedly, the responsibility of the deductor was to deposit the tax deducted at source in time and if not so, then with interest and consequently, where the tax was not paid

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

200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. However, various regulations and the statutory provisions in this regard point out that undoubtedly, the responsibility of the deductor was to deposit the tax deducted at source in time and if not so, then with interest and consequently, where the tax was not paid

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

200(3) of the Act or the proviso to section 206C(3) of the Act. However, various regulations and the statutory provisions in this regard point out that undoubtedly, the responsibility of the deductor was to deposit the tax deducted at source in time and if not so, then with interest and consequently, where the tax was not paid

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing.\n7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Ms. Padmavathy S

condone the delay in filing the present appeal and admit the appeal for hearing. 7. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee are inter related and inter connected and relates to challenging the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of interest u/s 201(1A) of the Act in respect of late deduction of tax at source

DINSHI AMPOULE MAKERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (TDS) CEN CPC GHAZIABAD PROCESSING CEL , GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH

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

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं /I.Ta Nos.4284 & 4285/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Dinshi Ampoule The Dcit (Tds), बनाम/ Makers Pvt. Ltd., Centralized Processing Cell Vs. A-37, Kapor House, Aayakar Bhavan, Road No. 2, Midc, Sector-3, Vaishali, Andheri (E), Ghaziabad U.P. -201 010 Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaacd 1725E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Shekhar Gupta अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Revenue By: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy

condoned and appeals are admitted. 4. Brief facts are that the Assessing Officer while passing intimation u/s.200A of the I.T. Act charged late filing fee u/s. 234E in respect of quarterly statements of TDS in Form No. 26Q. 5. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT, MUMBAI

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainreliance Industries Ltd. Maker Chambers, Iv, 3Rd Floor, 222,Nariman Point, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400021 Pan-Aaacr5055K V/S

200], the Hon’ble Chennai FIAT have held that for condonation of delay u/s,249(3), the appellant should have sufficient cause and has to prove that there has been diligence on its part and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever and further the cause for delay in filing appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided

THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE 2(3), MUMBAI

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

200\"\nWithout prejudice to the contention of the Appellant that the\nprovisions of Section 201(1A) of the Act are not applicable, even\nassuming though not conceding that the provisions of Section\n201(1A) of the Act were applicable to the Appellant, it is\nrespectfully submitted that the company has not deducted\nmonthly TDS on a pro-rata basis