BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

TDS Statement had not been filed. However, section 201(3) of the Act as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014, as mentioned in the memorandum of 20

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

TDS Statement had not been filed. However, section 201(3) of the Act as amended by Finance Act No.2 of 2014, as mentioned in the memorandum of 20

M/S PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. JOINT CIT RANGE 1, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

20,000, then the whole amount shall be disallowed under section 40A(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further observed that though the assessee claimed to have covered within the provisions of rule 6DD(j) and CBDT Circular no.220 of 1997, but fact remains that the provisions of rule–6DD(j) has been omitted from statue and accordingly

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

20. Notice dated 11/06/2021 under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2020–21 on 29/09/2021. The facts and circumstances along with the issues involved in all the seven appeals are almost identical and for sake of convenience, all the appeals are taken up for adjudication together. 3

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

20. Notice dated 11/06/2021 under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2020–21 on 29/09/2021. The facts and circumstances along with the issues involved in all the seven appeals are almost identical and for sake of convenience, all the appeals are taken up for adjudication together. 3

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

20. Notice dated 11/06/2021 under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2020–21 on 29/09/2021. The facts and circumstances along with the issues involved in all the seven appeals are almost identical and for sake of convenience, all the appeals are taken up for adjudication together. 3

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

20. Notice dated 11/06/2021 under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2020–21 on 29/09/2021. The facts and circumstances along with the issues involved in all the seven appeals are almost identical and for sake of convenience, all the appeals are taken up for adjudication together. 3

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

20. Notice dated 11/06/2021 under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2020–21 on 29/09/2021. The facts and circumstances along with the issues involved in all the seven appeals are almost identical and for sake of convenience, all the appeals are taken up for adjudication together. 3

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant Mmber

20. Notice dated 11/06/2021 under section 143(2) was issued and the assessment made under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2020–21 on 29/09/2021. The facts and circumstances along with the issues involved in all the seven appeals are almost identical and for sake of convenience, all the appeals are taken up for adjudication together. 3

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

BANK OF INDIA ,PRASHEONI BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

BANK OF INDIA,SIHORA BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 272A(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

DIGP GC CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

20. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for Section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of Section 271H

DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC(TDS) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

20. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, two aspects may transpire one, for Section 234E providing for fee and given privilege to the defaulter if he pays the fee and hence, when a privilege is given for a particular purpose which in the present case is to come out from rigors of penal provision of Section 271H

HASANTE BURHANIAH FIDAYYIAH TRUST,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

20. Even in absence of section 200A of the Act with introduction of section 234E, it was always open for the Revenue to demand and collect the fee for late filing of the statements. Section 200A would merely regulate the manner in which the computation of such fee would be made and demand raised. In other words, we cannot subscribe

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI ,AKOLA vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

TDS, Ghaziabad [for short "AO" ] for the asesment year s [for short "AY" ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved

ARCHANA VIDYANIKETAN LAKHPURI ,AKOLA vs. ACIT-CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

TDS, Ghaziabad [for short "AO" ] for the asesment year s [for short "AY" ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved

M/S MANASVI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CPC, GAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara

TDS, Ghaziabad [for short "AO" ] for the asesment year s [for short "AY" ] 201 3 - 1 4 to 201 6 - 1 7 . 2. T his seks to adjudicate t he isue of authorisation of levy of fes u/s 234E for default in furnishing statement u/s 20(3) in the absence of enabling provision. 3. Since the facts and isue involved