M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT.,LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ए. सी. आई. टी. सेंट्रलाइज्ड प्रोसेसिंग सेल-टी. डी. एस. , गाजिआबाद

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts; we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case Sudershan Goyal vs. DOT (TDS

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

RISHIRAJ HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.104, 206 & 207/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rishiraj Homes Private Limited Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur Contractors Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr 7328 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, All Dated 05.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All The Thee Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In All The Three Appeals Under 2

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in the present cases the issue were pertains to liability of late fee u/s 234E of the Act for delay in filing TDS statement which was inserted from 01.06.2015. 10. On similar facts, we have decided the same issue in the assessee's own case 'Sudershan Goyal vs. DCIT (TDS

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

1) of Section 200A can be read as having prospective effect and not having retroactive character or effect. Resultantly, the demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E could not be made in purported exercise of power under Section 200A by the respondent for the period of the respective assessment year prior