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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement

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

2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement

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

2), it is further provided that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectable, as the case may be. Sub-section (3) further lays down that the amount of fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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)

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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)

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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)

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel

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

2. The Assessees in both these appeals challenged the orders of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in confirming levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing the quarterly TDS statement in the form 26Q. These appeals are filed with a delay of 15 days and petitions for condonation of delay were filed explaining the reasons

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

2. It was submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. Even though the assessee has filed letter by explaining the reasons for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below: “In this regard, we hereby mention that, the we didn't receive any of those mails. This may be due to the reason that

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

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A of the Act were passed and then late fee under Section

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

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A of the Act were passed and then late fee under Section

M/S. GCL EQUIPMENT & MACHINES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. TDS CPC, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

condone the delay in filing of the impugned appeals. 05. Issue involved in all these appeals is levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act by the ACIT, TDS CPC Bangalore for F.Y. 2012-13 to F.Y. 2014-15 for various quarters. The respective orders under Section 200A of the Act were passed and then late fee under Section