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.

81 results for “TDS”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,100Delhi5,936Bangalore2,809Chennai2,488Kolkata1,773Pune1,239Ahmedabad1,091Hyderabad848Cochin773Indore737Jaipur582Patna558Raipur456Karnataka417Chandigarh404Nagpur398Surat312Visakhapatnam267Cuttack231Rajkot226Lucknow198Amritsar147Dehradun126Jodhpur122Jabalpur93Panaji81Agra78Ranchi76Guwahati70Telangana70Allahabad67Varanasi28SC26Calcutta21Kerala17Rajasthan9Himachal Pradesh8Punjab & Haryana7J&K5Orissa4Uttarakhand3A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Gauhati1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 234E97Section 201(1)83TDS72Section 4052Section 200A50Deduction43Addition to Income42Section 143(3)41Section 194C30Section 194A

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)

Showing 1–20 of 81 · Page 1 of 5

29
Disallowance29
Section 20128

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 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)

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

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

5. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that the provisions of section 201 of the Act does not envisage a recovery proceeding from the deductor in the event of failure to effect TDS

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 170/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the said delay is inordinate, the Ld. AR C Naresh, however submitted that, the substantial part of said delay is attributable to appellant’s unawareness about culmination of first appellate proceedings and passing of impugned orders. It was also contended that, although the impugned orders were passed way-back in January

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 169/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the said delay is inordinate, the Ld. AR C Naresh, however submitted that, the substantial part of said delay is attributable to appellant’s unawareness about culmination of first appellate proceedings and passing of impugned orders. It was also contended that, although the impugned orders were passed way-back in January

UNION BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, TDS CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI

Appeals are DISMISSED

ITA 171/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr C Naresh [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 131Section 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 253(1)

5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the said delay is inordinate, the Ld. AR C Naresh, however submitted that, the substantial part of said delay is attributable to appellant’s unawareness about culmination of first appellate proceedings and passing of impugned orders. It was also contended that, although the impugned orders were passed way-back in January

M/S CHOWGULE AND COMPANY (SALT) PVT. LTD,MORMUGAO vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, MARGAO

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of aforesaid observation

ITA 390/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. : 390/Pan/2017 करधििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 M/S Chowgule & Company (Salt) Pvt Ltd., Chowgule House, Mormugao Harbour, Goa – 403803. Pan: Aabcc 5595 J . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Margao, Goa. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Ms Hiral Sejpal Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull Am; The Present Appeal Filed By The Appellant Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax- Appeals, Panaji-1 [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 09/10/2017 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Tousled Out Of Order Of Assessment Of Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-Circle-2, Margoa [For Short “Ao”] Dt. 27/07/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act, For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2012-2013. Itat-Panaji Page 1 Of 23

For Appellant: Ms Hiral SejpalFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 10(35)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 250

TDS thereon, it cannot be treated as an ascertained liability on account of employee emoluments. 4) The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the section 115JB is complete code in itself and it overrides all other provisions of the Act. The book profit is deemed to be total income of the assessee and ITAT-Panaji Page 5

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 it’s customers/depositors

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 it’s customers/depositors

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 it’s customers/depositors

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 it’s customers/depositors

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 it’s customers/depositors

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 it’s customers/depositors

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

section 234E of Rs.34,816/- by stating that the appellant had failed to file the quarterly statement of TDS of fourth quarter for financial year 2012-13 in Form No.26Q. Accordingly, the DCIT, CPC (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

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

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

ITA 56/PAN/2022[2014-15 24Q 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

section 234E of Rs.34,816/- by stating that the appellant had failed to file the quarterly statement of TDS of fourth quarter for financial year 2012-13 in Form No.26Q. Accordingly, the DCIT, CPC (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

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

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

ITA 55/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q Q4]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

section 234E of Rs.34,816/- by stating that the appellant had failed to file the quarterly statement of TDS of fourth quarter for financial year 2012-13 in Form No.26Q. Accordingly, the DCIT, CPC (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

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

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

ITA 54/PAN/2022[2013-14 24Q 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

section 234E of Rs.34,816/- by stating that the appellant had failed to file the quarterly statement of TDS of fourth quarter for financial year 2012-13 in Form No.26Q. Accordingly, the DCIT, CPC (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

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

section 234E of Rs.34,816/- by stating that the appellant had failed to file the quarterly statement of TDS of fourth quarter for financial year 2012-13 in Form No.26Q. Accordingly, the DCIT, CPC (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

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

section 234E of Rs.34,816/- by stating that the appellant had failed to file the quarterly statement of TDS of fourth quarter for financial year 2012-13 in Form No.26Q. Accordingly, the DCIT, CPC (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