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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

271(1)(a) cannot be imposed if the deductor complies with the requirement of sub- section (3) of Section 271H. Hence, it can be said that the fee provided under Section 234E would take out from the rigors of penalty under Section 271H but of course subject to the outer limit of one year as prescribed under sub-section

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

u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. A clause (c) has been inserted into this Section by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015 which provide that the fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 234E. 3.2 The case of the assessee

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

u/s 200(3) or Section 206C(3). Section 200A deal with processing of statements of tax deducted at source. A clause (c) has been inserted into this Section by Finance Act, 2015 with effect from 01/06/2015 which provide that the fees, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 234E. 3.2 The case of the assessee

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

200A or sub-section (1) of section 206CB, where the assessee or the deductor or the collector] objects] to the making of adjustments, or any order of assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 [[except an order passed in ITA 1994Mum/13 & ITA 2836/Mum/14 25 pursuance of directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel [***] [or an order referred

UTI MUTUAL FUND,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, TRACES, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2295/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) बिाम/ Uti Mutual Fund, Dcit, Centralised Gn Block, Uti Tower, Processing Cell-Tds, Bandra Complex, Traces, V. Bandra (E), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400051 Sector-3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Up- 201010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaatu1088L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Krupa Gandhi Revenue By: Shri. Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being

c)E.I.DuPont India Private Ltd v. Dy. CIT. CPC - TDS , ITA No. 386 & 387/ Del 2016) (Delhi Tribunal) d)Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. ACIT (TDS) (ITA No. 1955 to 1965 Ahd/2015) (Ahmedabad SMC Bench) e)Navayuga Quazigund Expressway (P) Ltd., v. DCIT (ITA no. 1651/Hyd/14) (Hyderabad) f) Bank of Baroda v. DCIT, CPC, TDS [(2017) 88 taxmann.com 103) (Ahmedabad

ECONOMIC LAWS PRACTICE,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A)59, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

200A of the 1961 Act. We have observed that this issue had been subject matter of quite a controversy between the tax- payers and Revenue before the Hon’ble Courts/tribunals and consistent view has been taken by Hon’ble Courts and the tribunal that period of month in such cases is to be taken as period of 30/31 days