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

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

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

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

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

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

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

206C. This provision was apparently added for making the compliance of deduction and collection of tax at source, depositing it with Government revenue and filing of the statements more stringent. 18. In this context, we may notice that section 200A which pertains to processing of statements of tax deducted at source provides for the procedure once a statement of deduction

DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 1995-96 Dcit-2(2)(1), M/S State Bank Of India, R. No.545, Financial Reporting & बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan Taxation Department, 3Rd Vs. M.K. Road, Floor, Corporate Centre, Mumbai-400020 State Bank Bhavan, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Aaacs8577K

206C ; and (iii)advance tax or any tax treated as paid under section 199, but with respect to other tax under section 244A(1)(b), the interest shall be payable even if the amount is less than 10 % of the tax as determined under section 143(1)or on regular assessment, because there is no proviso to section 244A

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

condone the delay in late filing the income tax returns or that no appeal is provided from arbitrary order passed under section 234E of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that the right to appeal was not a matter of right but was creature of statute and if the Legislature deems fit not to provide remedy of appeal

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

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

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

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

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A),NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 206C. It clearly indicates that the tax authorities have to evaluate the reasons and verify sufficient cause for delay before levying the penalty. In the given case Ld.CIT(A) has not verified the sufficient cause for delay before confirming the penalty as well as he also not condoned

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A),NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 206C. It clearly indicates that the tax authorities have to evaluate the reasons and verify sufficient cause for delay before levying the penalty. In the given case Ld.CIT(A) has not verified the sufficient cause for delay before confirming the penalty as well as he also not condoned

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 206C. It clearly indicates that the tax authorities have to evaluate the reasons and verify sufficient cause for delay before levying the penalty. In the given case Ld.CIT(A) has not verified the sufficient cause for delay before confirming the penalty as well as he also not condoned

KAUSHAL ISHWAR GHANSHANI,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A), NFAC , DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

section 206C. It clearly indicates that the tax authorities have to evaluate the reasons and verify sufficient cause for delay before levying the penalty. In the given case Ld.CIT(A) has not verified the sufficient cause for delay before confirming the penalty as well as he also not condoned

NIHIL NARANBHAI DESAI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 32(2) (40, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalnihil Naranbhai Desai, Arun Sahu & Associates, Chartered Accountants, B24B, Ground Floor, Borivali Vyomesh Chs, Usha Nagar, Borivali Gymkhana Road, Borivali West, Mumbai-400092. Pan: Abzpd3758J ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-32(2)(4), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent

condone the delay and treat the return as a valid return. Explanation - for the purposes of this subsection, a return of income shall be regarded as defective unless all the following conditions are fulfilled, namely (a) the annexures, statements and columns in the return of income relating to computation of income chargeable under each head of income, computation of gross