BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

64 results for “TDS”+ Section 10(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,118Delhi5,037Bangalore2,464Chennai1,905Kolkata1,356Pune958Hyderabad741Ahmedabad666Indore562Jaipur460Cochin441Raipur418Chandigarh344Karnataka326Nagpur280Surat235Visakhapatnam205Rajkot158Lucknow151Amritsar113Cuttack107Jodhpur84Dehradun84Ranchi68Patna66Panaji64Jabalpur61Agra58Guwahati55Telangana49Allahabad36SC22Varanasi19Kerala15Calcutta13Himachal Pradesh8Rajasthan6Punjab & Haryana4Orissa3J&K3Uttarakhand3Gauhati1Bombay1A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 234E97Section 201(1)82TDS55Section 200A50Section 4037Deduction36Section 143(3)35Addition to Income32Section 194A28Section 201

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 33/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

28
Section 194C28
Disallowance21

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 7.3 Even the judgment of ITAT, Lucknow Bench it is held that there is no exemption available u/s 10(5) in case of travel outside India, and consequently the assessee is in default for not deducting TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 34/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 7.3 Even the judgment of ITAT, Lucknow Bench it is held that there is no exemption available u/s 10(5) in case of travel outside India, and consequently the assessee is in default for not deducting TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,BELGAUM vs. ITO, (TDS), BELGAUM

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 32/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 32 To 34/Pan/2018 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2014-15 State Bank Of India Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds) Regional Branch Office Belgaum Goaves, Hindwadi Belgaum – 590 011 [Aaacs8577K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. D/R Date Of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 31.03.2022 Order Per Bench: These Captioned Appeals Are Filed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Belagavi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)] Even Dt. 08/11/2017, For The Assessment Years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Challenging The Non-Compliance Of Provisions U/S 201(1)/(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter “The Act’]. 2. Facts In Brief Are That The Appellant/Assessee State Bank Of India, Regional Business Office Is A Banking Company Engaged In The Business Of Banking. A Survey U/S 133A Of The Act Was Conducted At The Bank Premises To Verify Compliance With Tds/Tcs Provisions. The Ito Held That The Assessee Has Failed To Deduct Tax At Source On The Reimbursement Made Against Foreign Ltc To The Officers Of The Bank & Accordingly He Applied The Provisions Of Section 201(1) & 201(1A) Of The Act Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1) & Charged Interest U/S 201(1A) Of The Act. In Respect Of The Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2.1. Aggrieved The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Confirmed The Finding Of The Ao By Observing As Under:-

Section 10(5)Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)

section 10(5) of the Act. The ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee is thus dismissed." 7.3 Even the judgment of ITAT, Lucknow Bench it is held that there is no exemption available u/s 10(5) in case of travel outside India, and consequently the assessee is in default for not deducting TDS

M/S SHREE BALAJI CONCEPTS,MARGAO vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TXATION), WARD -1, PANAJI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated as above

ITA 73/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 73/Pan/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri M. R. Hegde, CA &For Respondent: Smt. Rijula Uniyal, Sr. DR
Section 156Section 191Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)Section 205

10 Crores on 17/09/2011. The appellant while making the payment towards purchase of the property did not deduct TDS as per the provisions of section

PRASAD RAGHOBA NAIK,SANGUEM vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 6/PAN/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji24 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Kapish KakodkarFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikant
Section 154Section 250Section 5Section 5A

Section SA of Income Tax Act, 1961 specify that only the income shall be apportioned equally between husband and wife. 6. The learned CIT (Appeals)-12, Bengaluru erred in considering the fact that the appellant's 26AS disclosed the TDS Credit of Rs.2,66,599/- but credit for only Rs.1, 76,159/- was given while processing the return thus reducing

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 198/PAN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

section 201(1) of Rs.1,55,326/- and 201(1A) of Rs.1,08,036/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the departmental survey action had found the assessee not to have collected the corresponding Forms 15G and 15H from

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 196/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

section 201(1) of Rs.1,55,326/- and 201(1A) of Rs.1,08,036/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the departmental survey action had found the assessee not to have collected the corresponding Forms 15G and 15H from

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 197/PAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

section 201(1) of Rs.1,55,326/- and 201(1A) of Rs.1,08,036/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the departmental survey action had found the assessee not to have collected the corresponding Forms 15G and 15H from

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 200/PAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

section 201(1) of Rs.1,55,326/- and 201(1A) of Rs.1,08,036/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the departmental survey action had found the assessee not to have collected the corresponding Forms 15G and 15H from

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 201/PAN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

section 201(1) of Rs.1,55,326/- and 201(1A) of Rs.1,08,036/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the departmental survey action had found the assessee not to have collected the corresponding Forms 15G and 15H from

BANK OF BARODA,MUDHOL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), WARD-1, BELGAVI

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed

ITA 199/PAN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri I. Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Jagadish KamkarFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ
Section 194ASection 197Section 201(1)Section 206A

section 201(1) of Rs.1,55,326/- and 201(1A) of Rs.1,08,036/- is confirmed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 4. Suffice to say, it has come on record that the departmental survey action had found the assessee not to have collected the corresponding Forms 15G and 15H from

CANARA BANK,MARGAO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 54/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan And MS. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

section 194A has made it clear that where the payment of interest exceeding Rs.10,000/- during the particular F.Y., TDS at the rate of 10% has to be deducted

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. CANARA BANK, MARGAO

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 77/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan And MS. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

section 194A has made it clear that where the payment of interest exceeding Rs.10,000/- during the particular F.Y., TDS at the rate of 10% has to be deducted

CANARA BANK, PANAJI BRANCH,PANAJI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE, PANAJI

Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 53/PAN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan And MS. Lalitha RameswaranFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth
Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)

section 194A has made it clear that where the payment of interest exceeding Rs.10,000/- during the particular F.Y., TDS at the rate of 10% has to be deducted

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 53/PAN/2022[2013-14 26Q, Q3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten 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.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS), Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.34,816/- for Q4 u/s 234E by intimation dated 11.11.2013 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 60/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q 3]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten 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.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS), Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.34,816/- for Q4 u/s 234E by intimation dated 11.11.2013 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 59/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q Q1]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten 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.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS), Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.34,816/- for Q4 u/s 234E by intimation dated 11.11.2013 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 58/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten 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.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS), Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.34,816/- for Q4 u/s 234E by intimation dated 11.11.2013 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 52/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q, Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten 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.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS), Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.34,816/- for Q4 u/s 234E by intimation dated 11.11.2013 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee

KWALITY ANIMAL FEEDS PVT. LTD,BELGAUM vs. DCIT, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 57/PAN/2022[2014-15 26Q Q2]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.31 & 52 To 60/Pan/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Kwality Animal Feeds Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Tds, Ghaziabad. Ltd., Plot No.12, Kwality House, Jamboti Road, Machhe Industrial Area, Belgaum- 590014. Pan : Aabck0589J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Omkar Godbole Revenue By : Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 08.04.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Ten 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.31/Pan/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Omkar GodboleFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani
Section 200ASection 234E

TDS), Ghaziabad had levied penalty of late fee of Rs.34,816/- for Q4 u/s 234E by intimation dated 11.11.2013 passed u/s 200A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed with delay of 2495 days before the NFAC, who vide impugned order had not condoned the delay on the ground that the assessee