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

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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

7. With respect to the amendment in sub-section (1) of section 200A, counsel submitted that prior to such amendment, there was no mechanism provided under the Act for collection of fee under section 234E of the Act. The Assessing Officer therefore could not have adjusted such fee in terms of section 200A of the Act. Counsel drew our attention

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

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

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

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)

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

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)

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

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

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

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)

7. In the present case the correction statement filed by the Appellant pertaining to Financial Year 2012-13 [Quarter 2: Form 27EQ] was processed under Section 200A of the Act; fee under Section 234E of the Act was computed; and intimation under Section 154 read with Section 200A of the Act was issued which is deemed to be notice

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

7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee has not brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar

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

7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee has not brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar

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

7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee has not brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar

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

7. However, Ld.CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and he rejected the condonation application and also observed that the assessee has not brought on record any sufficient cause neither for condonation of delay nor for the levy of penalty u/s. 234E of the Act. Therefore, he 4 ITA NOs. 2057, 2058, 2059 & 2060/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2019-20) Kaushal Ishwar

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

7. We have gone through the relevant provisions of Sec. 139(9) and most importantly Sec. 292B inserted with effect from the AY 2008-09. For sake of better vision we are reproducing herein below both the sections as under: Sec. 139(9) Where the Assessing Officer considers that the return of income furnished by the assessee is defective