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.

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

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.

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

DR AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WORK,NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

TDS statement which\nwas processed on 10/04/2022, wherein demand was raised for late fees\nunder section 234E for ₹ 16,400, and interest thereon under section 220(2

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

2) of section 272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2011. 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 to sub–section

SHEPHALI ANIL MALVIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals (Ms

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Section under Date of order which the passed by Sr. order Appeal Number and Assessment Year the first no. appealed appellate against authority was passed 1. ITA no.115/Nag./2021 A.Y. 2013–14 30.09.2021 200A 2. ITA no.116/Nag./2021 A.Y. 2014–15 30.09.2021 200A 3. ITA no.117/Nag./2021 A.Y. 2013–14 30.09.2021 200A 4. ITA no.118/Nag./2021

ASHWIN SURESH CHANDAK,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD, TDS 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

TDS return was processed by the Central Processing Centre, late filing fee under section 234E of the Act at ` 11,840, which include late payment and interest under section 220(2

DAMMANI INDUSTRIES,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD, TDS 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

TDS return was processed by the Central Processing Centre, late filing fee under section 234E of the Act at ` 11,840, which include late payment and interest under section 220(2

SANJAY GANDHI SMRUTI VIDYA MANDIR ,HINGANGHAT, WARDHA vs. ITO TDS WD 52(1), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

TDS. 2. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any other ground that may be taken at the time of hearing of this case.” 3. The only issue involved in all these appeals is, whether the Assessing Officer can levy late fee prescribed under section 234E

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2013-14. Sunilkumar Rajendra Rai vs TDS Ward, Nagpur ITA no.286/Nag./2023 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– 2. “ Grounds of Appeal Tax Effect 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI MURTIZAPUR ,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1(2), AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER , PANCHAYATI SAMITI , MURTIZAPUR ,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1, AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1(2), AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2) , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2) , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2), AKOLA , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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