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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Section 273B, even if, there are reasonable grounds to explain the reason behind inordinate delay in filing the quarterly TDS

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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"

section 273B and since the assessee has a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the TDS quarterly statement, no penalty

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS return for 4th Quarter. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessment year under consideration is A.Y. 2011-12. The case of the Revenue is that the reasonable cause specified in the provisions of section 273B

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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"

TDS statements, being technical delay and not venial in nature, merits to be considered as reasonable cause for non levy of penalty as per the requirements of section 273B

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS statements as required by the Act. Recourse to section 273B should have been resorted to if the assessee was able

FINANCE DEPARTMENT ZILHA PARISHAD,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS statements as required by the Act. Recourse to section 273B should have been resorted to if the assessee was able

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

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.”

273B provide that no penalty shall be levied in case an assessee establishes that he was prevented from the compliance of the provisions of the said section for reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, in the light of these provisions, the question that is required to be determined by us is whether the explanation offered by the appellant bank before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS @1% u/s 1941A would also be required to be deducted for extra amenities such as club membership fees, car parking fee, electricity and water facility. maintenance fee or any other charges of similar nature paid at the time of purchase of property which are incidental to transfer of the immovable property. From the above it is clear that there

SAVALESHWAR DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Savaleshwar Dudh Utpadak Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Pandharpur Bamani, Taluka Sangola, Dist. Solapur – 413304 Pan : Aamts2990K Appellant Respondent

273B r. w. s. 271B seeking explanation for failure to comply provisions of section 44AB. The assessee did not submit any written submission. The AO considered the material available on record and observed that that there was contractor and contract relationship between assessee and govt. of Maharashtra and TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

273B of the Act. 3. Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271C of the Act for non-deduction of TDS on payments to foreign companies for design, expenses, software licenses/IT support, consultancy services, training, repair and maintenance. According to Assessing Officer such income is chargeable to tax in India