BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Pune325Delhi221Mumbai125Chennai88Bangalore71Visakhapatnam56Karnataka26Nagpur25Kolkata23Ahmedabad20Lucknow18Panaji15Indore12Cochin12Surat11Raipur10Hyderabad9Agra8Varanasi6Chandigarh6Jaipur4Rajkot4Patna3Jodhpur2Cuttack2Allahabad1Jabalpur1Guwahati1SC1Amritsar1Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 234E781Section 200A366Section 154134Section 271H116TDS100Rectification u/s 15442Penalty35Section 200(3)32Section 272A29Section 272A(2)

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

Showing 1–20 of 325 · Page 1 of 17

...
29
Addition to Income28
Section 271H(1)(a)26

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

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,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 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 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 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 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 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. 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,PUNE vs. ACIT TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 108/PUN/2021[205-16 (Quarter -4) TDS Statement in Form 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. 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

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,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 102/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 95/PUN/2021[2013-14 (Qtr-3 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.,,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,PIRANGOOT, PUNE vs. TDS CPC, GAZIABAD, GAZIABAD

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

ITA 104/PUN/2021[2015-16 (Quarter 4) Form 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 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. 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

MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,,CHALISGAON vs. DCIT TDS NASHIK & DCIT CPC TDS,, GHAZIABAD

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

ITA 1272/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2022AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare -For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 200ASection 234E

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