Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

354 results for “TDS”+ Section 272A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune354 Delhi222 Mumbai124 Chennai88 Bangalore71 Visakhapatnam58 Ahmedabad28 Karnataka26 Nagpur24 Kolkata23 Allahabad23 Cochin19 Lucknow17 Panaji15 Jaipur14 Indore13 Chandigarh12 Cuttack12 Hyderabad11 Surat11 Raipur10 Agra8 Varanasi6 Rajkot4 Patna3 Jodhpur2 Kerala1 Amritsar1 Jabalpur1 SC1 Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E767 Section 200A382 Section 154120 Section 271H100 TDS99 Rectification u/s 15440 Penalty31 Section 200(3)27 Section 272A25 Section 272A(2)

DIRECTOR, VJNT OBC & SBC WELFARE, MS, PUNE,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 906/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.906/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha

Section 2(31)Section 272(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section

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

Showing 1–20 of 354 · Page 1 of 18

...

25

Section 200A(1)24

Addition to Income23

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1050/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section

NISAR MEHBOOB ALAM KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2026/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2026/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Nisar Mehboob Alam Khan N K Construction, Plot No.22, Motiwala Nagar, Opp. Mgm Hospital, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad …. Pan: Akgpk5798P Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Tds Range, Nashik

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Sabana Parveen

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 272A(2)(k) r.w.s. 200(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Nisar Mehboob Alam Khan 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) of Rs.52,175/- for late filing of TDS

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

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 933/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2410/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2021AY 2011-12

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.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P Walimbe

Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(K)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS)-2, ITA No.1999/Mum/2017 dated 05.10.2018. The provisions of Section 272A(2)(k) are subject to provisions of section 273B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 319/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

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.

Section 192Section 198Section 199Section 200Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 272A(2) of the Act, since penalty has been levied for default in furnishing e-TDS returns under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1151/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal

Section 200(3)Section 271Section 271BSection 271CSection 271DSection 271ESection 271FSection 271GSection 271HSection 272A

2)(c) and (d) have found a place, accordingly, the appellant cannot get the benefit of Section 273B, even if, there are reasonable grounds to explain the reason behind inordinate delay in filing the quarterly TDS statement as envisaged u/s.200(3) of I.T. Act. Further, the enactment of second proviso to section 272A

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 94/PUN/2021[2013-14 (2 Q - 26Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. ACIT, TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 97/PUN/2021[2014-15(Qtr-2 24Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 100/PUN/2021[2014-15 ( Y. 2013-14 Qr. -1)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 92/PUN/2021[2013-14(Qtr-3 24Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. ACIT, TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 99/PUN/2021[2014-15(Qtr-4 24Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 105/PUN/2021[26Q/Quarter-1/2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 106/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PUNE vs. ACIT TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 107/PUN/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 96/PUN/2021[2014-15(Qtr-1 24Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 103/PUN/2021[26Q/Quarter-1/2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. ACIT, TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 93/PUN/2021[2013-14 (Qtr-4 24Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. ACIT, TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 98/PUN/2021[2014-15(Qtr-3, 24Q)]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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

INTECH SURFACE COATING PVT LTD,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 101/PUN/2021[26Q/Quarter-2/2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Pune07 Sept 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.92 To 108/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Intech Surface Coating Pvt. Vs. Acit, Cpc-Tds, Ltd., Ghaziabad. S.No.1073/1,2,3, Pirangoot, Mutha Road, Tal Mulshi – 412111. Pan : Aaaci4150J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Pune Dated 23.10.2019 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 Seventeen 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.92/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

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