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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Pune199Delhi100Chennai87Mumbai69Bangalore48Karnataka26Allahabad22Ahmedabad19Kolkata18Cochin17Jaipur13Surat11Panaji10Agra8Visakhapatnam7Cuttack7Raipur7Nagpur6Lucknow5Hyderabad5Chandigarh5Varanasi5Jodhpur2Kerala1Indore1Guwahati1

Key Topics

Section 234E967Section 200A295Section 271H208TDS94Penalty58Section 200(3)54Section 272A52Section 272A(2)52Section 271H(1)(a)50Condonation of Delay

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

Showing 1–20 of 199 · Page 1 of 10

...
34
Section 12A18
Addition to Income8

TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy

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

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

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

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

TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy

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

TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy

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)

TDS returns under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Since section 273B of the Act covers the cases of levy

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

TDS return in Form-26Q for 1st quarter of F.Y. 2010-11. He therefore held that as per provisions of Section 272A(2)(k

KRANTI LIQUORS,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil R. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

section 273B penalty levied u/s. 272A(2)(k) cannot be waived even on furnishing of sufficient cause. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Nikhil R. Parmar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that there has been delay of 376 days in filing e-TDS

STAR QUENCHERS SPIRIT PVT. LTD,NASHIK vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 251/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara& Dr. Dipak P. Ripotestar Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Vs Jcit – Tds Range, Ltd., Flat No.1-1, Basant Nashik. Building, Spandan Nagar, Cidco, Aurangabad. Pan: Aancs 2939 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : /05/2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesseeagainst The Orderof Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Nfac], Delhi,Dated 30.01.2023U/S. 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Act For A.Y.2011-12.The Assesseehas Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Deleting The Rs.1,09,304/- Penalty As Directed By Itat In Its Order Para 4,5,6. Appellant Prays To Delete Whole Of The Penalty Confirmed By Cit(A) Of Rs. 1,09,304/- 2. Without Prejudice To Ground No.1 Rs. 1,09,304/- Cit(A) Has Erred In Exceeding His Jurisdiction In Conforming Penalty Of Star Quenchers Spirit Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR
Section 200(3)Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS statements. The Assessing Authority, therefore, in the absence of any explanation having been offered by the appellant, levied penalty under section 272A(2)(k

M/S. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,,NANDED vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE ,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2974/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2974/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. State Bank Of Vs. Joint Cit, Tds Range, Hyderabad, Nashik. At Shrinagar, Nanded- 431602. Tan : Nskso8336G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 23.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.2,11,100/- U/S 272(A)2(K) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Appellant Prays For Just & Equitable Relief. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Withdraw The Ground/S During The Proceedings.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 200(3)Section 272Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

K) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty may please be cancelled. 2. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief. 3. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw the Ground/s during the Proceedings.” 2 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant is a Branch of Public Sector Bank. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS

THE POONA STUD FARM PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1035/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1035/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Vishnu BhutadaFor Respondent: Shri Aseem Sharma
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(c)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

TDS return late. We hold that the assessee had reasonable cause in not furnishing the same in time and in view of the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we hold that the assessee is not liable to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k

SAMAL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1124/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1124/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.K Jadhav
Section 200(3)Section 272A(2)(k)Section 273B

TDS return late. We hold that the assessee had reasonable cause in not furnishing the same in time and in view of the provisions of section 273B of the Act, we hold that the assessee is not liable to levy of penalty under section 272A(2)(k

THE UNIQUE ACADEMY,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1034/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1034/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal, CIT-DR
Section 272(2)(k)Section 272A(2)(k)

section 272A(2)(k)/274 r.w.s. 200(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. As per the provisions of 272A(2)(k)/274 r.w.s. 200(3), the deductor assessee is liable for penalty of Rs.100/- per day for the period of delay in submission of Form No.26Q. Therefore, for delay of 434 days in filing e-TDS

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege

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)

k) is done away in view of the insertion of Section 271H providing for penal provision for such failure to submit return. When the Parliament has simultaneously brought about Section 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to Section 272A(2), it can be said that, the fee provided under Section 234E is contemplated to give a privilege