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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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 ()

condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” as not maintainable.” 3. Having heard the rival submissions advanced Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the respective

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 ()

condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.” as not maintainable.” 3. Having heard the rival submissions advanced Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the respective

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 ()

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

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)

3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us and in support of its case relied upon various judgments of High Courts and the Tribunal. On the contrary the ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order, by relying upon various judgments specifically by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High

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)

3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us and in support of its case relied upon various judgments of High Courts and the Tribunal. On the contrary the ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order, by relying upon various judgments specifically by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High

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)

3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us and in support of its case relied upon various judgments of High Courts and the Tribunal. On the contrary the ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order, by relying upon various judgments specifically by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High

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)

3) of IT Act, 1961. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us and in support of its case relied upon various judgments of High Courts and the Tribunal. On the contrary the ld. DR refuted the claim of the Assessee and supported the impugned order, by relying upon various judgments specifically by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High

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 assessing officer / ITO, TDS / CPC on 22.10.2021 and first appeal before ld. CIT(A) was filed only on 07.11.2022, thus, there was an inordinate delay even in filing first appeal. No application for condonation of delay is filed by assessee, thus, the appeal of assessee may be dismissed. 3

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2015-16

3 M/s. Halo Technologies and Training Pvt. Ltd. condoned the delay in filing the appeal and consequently admitted the same for adjudication……………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………. The delay in filing the TDS statement was prior to 01.06.2015 and therefore as per amended provision of section 200A