BAKHTAWAR CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6943/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Bakhtawar Construction Co. Addl. Cit (Tds) Rg 1 P. Ltd, Meher House, 10T H Floor, K.G. Mittal 1St Floor, Casasji Patel Street Ayurvedic Hosptial Bldg, V. Fort, Bombay 400001 Charni Road(W) Mumbai 400002 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb4942P (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. We reverse the finding of CIT(A) in this regard. 22. Now, coming to the case of reasonableness put up before us by different assessee. The first plea raised by all the assessee is that where the compliance to the provisions of the Act was complicated and difficult and in the absence

SHRI VINAY D. NARKAR,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. CIT TDS, THANE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2181/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri. Vinay D. Narkar, बिाम/ Addl. Cit(Tds), 1/3, James House, Ground Floor, B-Wing, Dsouza Wadi, Qureshi Mansion, V. Waglre Estate, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Shivaji Nagar Road No. 3, Thane-West, Thane-400604 Thane-400602 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aespn7371K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: None Shri. Rajiv Gubgaotra (Dr) Revenue By:

272A(2)(k) aggregating to Rs. 42,500/- being Rs. 20,000/- for Quarter 1 and Rs. 22,500/- for Quarter 2 of F.Y. 2011-12. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee has filed this appeal with tribunal late by 1 day beyond

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

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso

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

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso

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

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso

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

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso

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

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso

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

k) of sub-section (2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso

ADDL CIT R G 7(1), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS INDIA LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINDUSTAN CIBA GIEGY LTD. ), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited V. Asst. Commissioner Of Income –Tax - 7(2)(2) {Earlier Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} 6Th& 7Th Floor 1St Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Inspire Bkc M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 “G” Block, Bkc Main Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1) V. M/S. Novartis India Limited Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.190/Mum/2011 [Arising Out Of Ita No.6772/Mum/2010 (A.Y. 2002-03)] M/S. Novartis India Limited V. Addl. Commissioner Of Income –Tax – 7(1)} Room No. 622, Aayakar Bhavan {Earlier Known As Hindustan Ciba Giegy Ltd.,} Sandoz House, Dr. A.B. Road M.K. Road, Mumbai - 400020 Worli, Mumbai – 400018 Pan: Aaach2914F (Appellant) (Respondent)

272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order; (e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section

KANAIYALAL B SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhkanaiyalal B. Shah Jcit Range-19(2), 31, Jai Bhavani Society, Mumbai. Vs. 3 Rr Thakker Marg, Mumbai-400006. Pan: Aahpk4505D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Divya Jeswant (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Dr)

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Now, we shall proceed to consider the appeal on merit. 5. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the order of lower authorities, leading to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(c) are that assessment of assessee was reopened on the basis of information received by Government of India from

CROMPTON GREAVES LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT -6, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee company in ITA no

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ramit Kochar"ी शैल" कुमार यादव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखाकार सद"य के सम" । आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1994/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2836/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) M/S Crompton Greaves बनाम/ Cit – 6,Mumbai, Ltd.,6Th Floor, C.G. House, 5Th Floor, V. Dr. A.B. Road, Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 030. M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc3840K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep N. Kapasi Revenue By : Shri C.W. Angolkar सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29-10-2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-02-2016

delay was computed in a reasonable and prudent manner based on past experience of the company and the company has a policy to write back the unused amounts and offer the same for taxation on expiry of the relevant period for claim of damages and there is no leakage of revenue as the company is being taxed at a flat

SANJAY K. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-19(2), MUMBAI

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rehman & Shri Ravish Soodsanjay K. Shah, Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, 31, Jay Bhavani Society, Range 19(2), 3 Ridge Road, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai – 400 006

delay of 46 days involved in filing of the present appeal by the assessee merits to be condoned. 7. We shall now advert to the merits of the case. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that involving exactly identical facts and circumstances penalty under Sec. 272A(2)(c) was imposed in the case of the father of the assessee

EAGLE COURIERS,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 1,, MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

delay in filing the quarterly TDS statements be condoned. However, the Assessing Officer did not agree with the assessee and levied penalty under section 272A(2)(k

RANI GROVER,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) RG 3, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the assessee for all three assessment years are allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

section 272A(2)(k) was issued to the assessee. The assessee contested the notice by filing reply. The assessee contended therein that she is a senior citizen and has filed returns voluntarily. There was no explanation offered by her, as to why the delay occurred for filing returns of TDS. Neither the assessee nor her representative appeared before the first

MAHARAHSTRA RAJYA SAHAKARI DUDH MAHASANGH MARYADIT,MUMBAI vs. ADDL CIT (TDS) 2, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarm/S Maharashtra Rajya Acit(Tds)-2 Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Room No. 701, Smt. K.G. Maryadit, 12, Mahanand Diary, Vs. Mittal Ayurvedic Hospital Western Express Highway, Building, Charni Road (West), Goregaon (E), Mumbai-400002. Mumbai -400065. Pan: Aaatm4973E Appellant Respondent

272A(2)(k) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has not filed quarterly returns of Tax Deducted at Source (‘TDS’) as required under section 206/206C of the Act for Financial Year 2007-08. A show-cause notice dated 24.06.2011 was issued to the assessee

YASH CORPORATION,NAGPUR vs. ADDLL. CIT - TDS RG, THANE

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

section 272A(2)(k) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the assessment year 2009–10. 2 Yash Corporation 2. There is a delay of 15 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason for delay. After perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the view

ARPANNA DEVELOPMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष

condonation of delay also to be wholly without any merits. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed before us including the case law relied upon by both the parties. The ld. AR vehemently argued before us that the late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act is not leviable under the provisions

KAMALA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. ITO (TDS) 1(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am श्री महाविर स िंग, न्याययक दस्य एििं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा दस्य के मक्ष

condonation of delay also to be wholly without any merits. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed before us including the case law relied upon by both the parties. The ld. AR vehemently argued before us that the late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act is not leviable under the provisions

HARILAL DESAR RANA CLOTHING COMPANY LLP,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (CPC)-TDS,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

condonation of delay also to be wholly without any merits. 4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed before us including the case law relied upon by both the parties. The ld. AR vehemently argued before us that the late filing fee u/s 234E of the Act is not leviable under the provisions