SAINATH VIDYALAYA,MAKKEPALLI vs. ITO,TDS WARD-52(3), CHANDRAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

1) of Section 200A can be read as having\nprospective effect and not having retroactive\ncharacter or effect. Resultantly, the demand under\nSection 200A for computation and intimation for the\npayment of fee under Section 234E could not be\nmade in purported exercise of power under Section\n200A by the respondent for the period of the\nrespective assessment year prior

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

1-6-2015 & for TDS deducted before\n01/06/2015 are wrong, unlawful and beyond jurisdiction hence liable to be\nquashed and late fee should be deleted in view of various High Court and\ntribunal judgments of coordinate benches also.\n5. That the TDS statement has been processed u/s 200A by TDS-CPC,\nwhereas as per sec 200A (2), CBDT

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

200A of the Act under sub–clause (c) of sub–section 1. There is a delay of 94 days in filing appeal before us. The appellant had placed an affidavit explaining the causes of delay. Being satisfied with the sufficient reasons, we condone

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

condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT

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

condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT

BANK OF INDIA, ARMORI ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT

BANK OF INDIA, PANCHGAON,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT

BANK OF INDIA,UMRED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC.TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

condonation of delay. We find that the issue involved in the present appeals filed by the assessee is on levy of late fee u/s.234E of the Act, for belated filing of quarterly TDS returns beyond prescribed date and this issue is covered by various decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, including decision of the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT

PRIYADARSHINI KANYA VIDYALAYA,GHUGHUS vs. ITO,TDS WD.-52, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

1 of appeal is dismissed.” The assessee being aggrieved, is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard the arguments of the rival parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has levied late fee under section 234E

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTIES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order

BAJAJ STEEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order