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

1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Prior to said substation, the Assessing Officer had no authority to charge the fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act. Before exercising the authority of charging any sum from any deductor or the assessee, the prescribed authority should have necessary

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

1) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Prior to said substation, the Assessing Officer had no authority to charge the fees under section 234E of the Act while issuing intimation under section 200A of the Act. Before exercising the authority of charging any sum from any deductor or the assessee, the prescribed authority should have necessary

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

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 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 assessment year prior

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

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 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 assessment year prior

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

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 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 assessment year prior

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

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 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 assessment year prior

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

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 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 assessment year prior

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

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 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 assessment year prior

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)

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

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)

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

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)

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

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

condone the delay of 57 days in filing the appeal and proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised in the appeal on merits. Since all the grounds raised pertain to common issue of levy of late fee under Section 234E of the Act the same are taken up together hereinafter. 6. The Appellant has challenged the levy of fee under Section

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

delay is 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

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

ELLORA PROPERTY SERVICES P. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIBAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed”

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

condoned the delay and we noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the issue raised by the assessee on merit and dismissed the appeals as unadmitted. 4. Considered the submissions of both the parties, we noticed that the AO has imposed late fee u/s 234E r.w.s. 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

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

condonation of delay that the assessee has not received any intimation of such outstanding dues and only upon initiation of recovery proceedings, assessee came to know about the outstanding demand. 9. Further, on merits, we find that the issue whether clause (c) of section 200A(1

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

condonation of delay that the assessee has not received any intimation of such outstanding dues and only upon initiation of recovery proceedings, assessee came to know about the outstanding demand. 9. Further, on merits, we find that the issue whether clause (c) of section 200A(1

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

condonation of delay that the assessee has not received any intimation of such outstanding dues and only upon initiation of recovery proceedings, assessee came to know about the outstanding demand. 9. Further, on merits, we find that the issue whether clause (c) of section 200A(1