JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

condone the delay for accepting the auditor’s report at a later date has only been given to the ITO and not thereafter, i.e., at the appellate stage. We find no merit in this submission. The CBDT by issuing the Circular dt. 9th Feb., 1978 has treated the provision regarding furnishing of auditor’s report along with the return

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B. C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-(TDS),- , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,CPC- (TDS),, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

B.C. BIYANI PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,BHUSAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC (TDS), , GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1655 To 1665/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17

delay(s) stands condoned therefore. 3. Coming to merits, there is hardly any dispute that the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of section 234E r.w.s. 200A late filing fee; involving varying sums, as not sustainable since the corresponding provision to this effect applies w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Revenue has strongly supported both the lower authorities

ANNASAHEB PATIL PRASHALA,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1584 To 1586/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

delay in latter twin instances; respectively thereby affirming the assessing Officer’s action levying section 234E late filing fee(s) involving varying sums in issue. 3. Mr. Walimbe hardly could dispute that apart from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion drawing presumption the assessee having got served the CPC’s orders by electronic mode, there is no indication

ANNASAHEB PATIL PRASHALA,,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1584 To 1586/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

delay in latter twin instances; respectively thereby affirming the assessing Officer’s action levying section 234E late filing fee(s) involving varying sums in issue. 3. Mr. Walimbe hardly could dispute that apart from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion drawing presumption the assessee having got served the CPC’s orders by electronic mode, there is no indication