M/S. L.N. KUNJIR,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1050/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. L.B. Kunjir, 52/1, Swanand Building, Shri Ram Hsg. Society, Chandan Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aabfl9816E Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (Tds) Range, Pune

c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act. What is relevant for adjudication before us is section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS

PRAVIN CHATARBHUJ BAJAJ,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.933/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pravin Chatarbhuj Bajaj, M/S. Hi-Tech Engineers, Plot No.F-68, Midc Area, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adhpb0700E Vs. The Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent (Tds) Range, Pune

c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act. What is relevant for adjudication before us is section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS

MAHARASHTRA JEEVAN PRADHIKARAN,,PARBHANI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (TDS) RANGE -NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2410/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Works Division, Parbhani-431 401 Tan : Nskm04669A .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

c) or clause (d) of sub- section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act. What is relevant for adjudication before us is section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS

DEPUTY COLLECTOR OFFICE,,UDGIR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.319/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : - Deputy Collector Office, The Jcit, Tds, Range, Main Road, Udgir, Tq.Udgir, Vs Nashik. Dist.Latur - 413517. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad Arising Out Of Assessing Officer’S Order Section 272A(2)(K) R.W.S 200(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2018. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Is Levy Of Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act. The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 05/02/2014 Levied Penalty U/S.272A(2)(K) Of The Act For Delay In Filling Quarterly Statements Of Tax Deducted At Source (Tds) U/S.200(3) Of The Act.

c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A of the Act. What is relevant for adjudication before us is section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS

D.R.K. CONSTRUCTION,,SATARA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or][sub-section(1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the 1st day of January, 1997; (l) an order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; (m) an order imposing a penalty under section 271B or section 271BB

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the 1st day of January, 1997; (l) an order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; (m) an order imposing a penalty under section 271B or section 271BB

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A on or after the 1st day of January, 1997; (l) an order imposing a penalty under sub-section (2) of section 158BFA; (m) an order imposing a penalty under section 271B or section 271BB

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.

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 234E. respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive

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.

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 234E. respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive

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.

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 234E. respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive

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.

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 234E. respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive

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.

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 234E. respondent-Revenue that insertion of clause (c) to (f) under Section 200A(1) should be treated as retroactive

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

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

Appeals are allowed in above terms

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 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

M/S OMKAR REFRACTORIES P LTD,NASHIK 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.692 To 697/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 C. L. Shirole, Vs. Acit, (Cpc)-Tds, 1120, Purushottam Apartment, Ghaziabad. Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaafc8318F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.707 To 712/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Omkar Refractories P. Vs. Acit, (Cpc)-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. E 28/1, Malegaon Midc, Sinnar, Nashik- 422103. Pan : Aaaco7462M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kiran Sanmane Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 30.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.10.2021 & Ita No.707 To 712/Pun/2021 23.07.2021 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 Twelve 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.692/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

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 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

M/S OMKAR REFRACTORIES P LTD,NASHIK 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.692 To 697/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 C. L. Shirole, Vs. Acit, (Cpc)-Tds, 1120, Purushottam Apartment, Ghaziabad. Model Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aaafc8318F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.707 To 712/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Omkar Refractories P. Vs. Acit, (Cpc)-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. E 28/1, Malegaon Midc, Sinnar, Nashik- 422103. Pan : Aaaco7462M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kiran Sanmane Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 30.09.2022 : Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By Two Different Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.10.2021 & Ita No.707 To 712/Pun/2021 23.07.2021 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 Twelve 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.692/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

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 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned