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

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

BALAJI GRAPHICS ART PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT (TDS) CPC GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt.Renu Jauhri ()

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having Assessment Years: 2013-14 to 2015-16 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

STRONGBUILT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing by the respective Assessing Officer

STRONGBUILD CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. OSD TDS CIR ITO TDS WD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised ction 200A of the Act, wherein the demand has been raised by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing by the respective Assessing Officer. In the event that the Assessing by the respective Assessing Officer

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 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 Asst. Year prior

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,MUMBAI vs. TDS-CPC , UTTER PRADESH

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 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 Asst. Year prior

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 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 Asst. Year prior

SHREE KALYAANEE KRRSNA BUILDERS,GHAZIABAD vs. TDS-CPC, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the Appeals filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri N. K. Choudhry, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 361/Mum/2023 To आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 364/Mum/2023 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

1) of Sec. 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect-Resultantly, the demand u/s 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 Asst. Year prior

M/S. HALO TECHNOLOGIES AND TRAINING PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT- TDS (CPC), GHAZIABAD

Bench: It.

200A for Quarter 2-26Q, Quarter 3-24Q, Quarter 4-24Q was time-barred. 6. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in law, facts, and circumstances of the case by confirming the levy fees of Rs. 1,46,000/- under section 234E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ignoring the decision

MADANLAL MOHANLAL HINGAD,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad Acit, Cpc Cell – Tds / Room No. 31 & 32, Wadi Mansion, Vs Ito, Ward – 20(1)(1) G.R. Road, Hindmata, Dadar, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aaaph5096B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

section 200A was passed by ACIT, Central Processing Cell TDS on 22.10.2021. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 07.11.2022, thus, there was substantial delay. Appeal of assessee was not admitted being filed belatedly. Thereby, appeal was dismissed in limine vide order dated 16.03.2023. Order dated 16.10.2023 was challenged before this Tribunal only

M/S. BRANDMARK SOLUTIONS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. WARD 12(1) (3) /AO NFAC, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

Bench: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals: 2. 2 Assessment Year 2017-18 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer/CPC TRACES/Authorities below has erred in levying the late fees/penalty u/s 234E