GANGAMAI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

GANGAMAI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

GANGAMAI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

GANGAMAI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

GANGAMAI COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

SHRI KAILASH RAMESHWAR LOYA,JALNA vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

SHRI KAILASH RAMESHWAR LOYA,JALNA vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

SHRI KAILASH RAMESHWAR LOYA,JALNA vs. ACIT, CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

VISHWANATH RAMANAND KUSHWAHA HUF,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

VISHWANATH RAMANAND KUSHWAHA HUF,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

VISHWANATH RAMANAND KUSHWAHA HUF,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

VISHWANATH RAMANAND KUSHWAHA HUF,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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

INDIASOFT TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.520 To 530/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Indiasoft Technologies Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. Dua Building, 2Nd Floor, Ghule Patil Road, Ahead Of Raheja Vista Premium, Mohammed Wadi, Pune- 411060. Pan : Aabci0540H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 26.09.2022 : आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 10.08.2021 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Eleven 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.520/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

271H(3) that too by expressly put bar for penalty under Section 272A by insertion of proviso to Section 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