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

condoned and all the appeals are admitted for adjudication on merits. 5. Now coming to the merits of the case, in all these appeals, the assessee has challenged the levy of late filing fees under section 234E of the Act. 6. With the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee in ITA No. 122/Nag/2022 was taken

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

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

272A(2), it can be said\nthat a particular set up for imposition and the\npayment of fee under Section 234E was provided\nbut, it did not provide for making of demand of such\nfee under Section 200A payable under Section\n234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar\nfacts and circumstances, we are unable to accept\nthe contention of the learned

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. The assessee has received letter on 02/03/2022 communicating defects in the aforesaid appeal filed by assessee. In letter it has been observed that appeal is time barred by 39 days. 3. It is respectfully submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022, in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 and in Suo Motto Writ Petition(C

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

ANIL LADHARAM HASSIJA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD 2 (4) , BHANDARA

Appeals are allowed

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

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. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned