SPADEWORK SOFTWARE SERVICES P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CPC) -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SPADEWORK SOFTWARE SERVICES P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CPC) -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SHATABDI INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH,AGASKHIND vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS),, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

SPADEWORK SOFTWARE SERVICES P LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CPC) -TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

1)(b) 9. No other adjustments in the amount refundable to, or recoverable from, the tax deductor, were permissible in accordance with the law as it existed at that point of time. 10. In view of the above discussions, in our considered view, the adjustment in respect of levy of fees under section 234E was indeed beyond the scope

RAM REFRIGERATION AND ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMED NAGAR, AHMED NAGAR

In the result, all the appeals filed the Assessee are allowed

section 200A(1)(c) authorising such levy came into force\nw.e.f. 1\" June, 2015 by Finance Act, 2015, consequently the\nfees levied for any default prior thereto being sine auctoritate\nhence unsustainable in the eyes of law. This position finds\nfortified by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Fatheraj\nSinghvi & Ors Vs UOI reported

PANCHARATNA BUILDCON PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT-CPC,GAZIABAD, NASHIK

In the result, ITA.No.2049/PUN

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS, Pune ITA.No.1286 to 1309/PUN./2023 dated 29.02.2024 under identical circumstances observed as under : “5. We have heard the common rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short 'ITAT, Rules'] perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light

PANCHARATNA BUILDCON PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT-CPC,GAZIABAD, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, ITA.No.2049/PUN

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS, Pune ITA.No.1286 to 1309/PUN./2023 dated 29.02.2024 under identical circumstances observed as under : “5. We have heard the common rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short 'ITAT, Rules'] perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in the light