CHATE TUTORIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a non-speaking order and needs to be quashed. 3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156 after the said TDS statement has been delivered. a. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD. AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, CPC TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD. ,AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD. ,AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

2) in his order as one taken up for section 234E. Thus, the order is a\nnon-speaking order and needs to be quashed.\n3) That demand of late fees/additional cannot be made under section 156\nafter the said TDS statement has been delivered.\na. As per the provisions of Sec. 234E of the Act, if a person fails

M/S. TATA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1433/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S. Tata Technologies Limited, Plot No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Hingewadi, Pune – 411057 …. Pan: Aaact3092N Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (International Taxation)-Ii, Pune

2 to section 9(1)(vi) of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer made reference to the Finance Ac, 2012, which has clarified that right to use of computer software including license is ‘royalty’. Reference was made to Explanation 4 under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act inserted by Finance Act, 2012. In other words, Finance

BANK OF INDIA ( SHAHUPURI BRANCH),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, TDS,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the 9 appeals are partly allowed as above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Sl. No. Ita No. Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. Year 1-2 119/Pun/2019 Bank Of India (Peth Ito, Tds, 2009-10 120/Pun/2019 Vadgaon Branch), Kolhapur 2010-11 R.S. No.128, Plot No.7, Yadav Colony, Peth Vadgaon, Tal. Hatkanangale, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C 3-4 121/Pun/2019 Bank Of India (Islampur Ito, Tds, 2009-10 122/Pun/2019 Branch), Kolhapur 2010-11 Natyagruha Building, Near Tahasildar Office, Tal. Walva, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C 5-6 123/Pun/2019 Bank Of India Ito, Tds, 2009-10 124/Pun/2019 (Shahupuri Branch), Kolhapur 2010-11 683 E, 2Nd Lane, Shahupuri, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C 7-8 125/Pun/2019 Bank Of India Ito, Tds, 2009-10 126/Pun/2019 (Jaysingpur Branch), Kolhapur 2010-11 Radhabai Raod, Post Box No.60, Jaysingpur, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C 9-10 127/Pun/2019 Bank Of India (Miraj Ito, Tds, 2009-10 128/Pun/2019 Branch), Kolhapur 2010-11 Shivaji Road Branch Indian Med Association Building Hospital Road Miraj, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C 11 129/Pun/2019 Bank Of India Ito, Tds, 2010-11 (Kharsundi Branch), Kolhapur Sourabh, Opp. S.T. Stand, At & Post Kharsundi, Tal. Atpadi, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C 12 131/Pun/2019 Bank Of India (Chuye Ito, Tds, 2010-11 Branch), Kolhapur At & Post Chuye, Via Ispurli, Tal. Karveer, Kolhapur Pan: Aaacb0472C

section 201(3) by Finance Act, 2014. c. Sodex SVC India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) 2(2) [92 taxmann.com