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

delay of 17 days in filing each of these three appeals and accordingly in the interest of equity and justice condone the same. These three appeals are accordingly admitted for adjudication. 3.1 In the above three appeals, the assessees have raised the following identical grounds: - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: 1. That

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

delay of 17 days in filing each of these three appeals and accordingly in the interest of equity and justice condone the same. These three appeals are accordingly admitted for adjudication. 3.1 In the above three appeals, the assessees have raised the following identical grounds: - “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law: 1. That

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

delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same

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)

Section 200A] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 5. We note that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of application seeking condonation

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)

Section 200A] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 5. We note that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of application seeking condonation

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)

Section 200A] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 5. We note that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of application seeking condonation

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

Section 200A] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 5. We note that there is a delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. On perusal of application seeking condonation

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

delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same

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

delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same

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

delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same

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

delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same

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

delay had taken the date of intimation under section 200A of the Act as the basis, whereas the assessee had filed appeals before CIT(A) against the order passed under section 154 of the Act. The CIT(A) had noted that rectification application was filed in February, 2018 which was rejected by CPC on the same

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

200A of the Act. 3. The appeals are barred by limitation by 12 days. The assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the reasons as to why the appeal could not be filed in time. On going through the petition for condonation and affidavit, we find that there is reasonable cause for short delay in filing appeals. Hence the delay

P L OSWAL & CO.,KALYAN vs. A.O. TDS WD KALYAN, KALYAN

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

condone the delay of 15 days and admit the appeals for hearing. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessees at the outset submits that the Centralized Processing Cell issued intimation u/s 200A of the Act on Form No.26Q filed by the Assessees for the 4th quarter of the financial year 2012-13 and while processing Form No.26Q, in the intimation

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT & MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT AND MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, MUMBAI

Appeals are allowed

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

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A