TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of TDS statements for the second and third quarter of the financial year 2013-14 2. During the course of hearing, learned Representatives fairly accept that the issue involved in these appeals is the same as was in ITA No. 90/Asr/2015 (A.Y. 2013-14) in the case of Sibia Healthcare Private Limited, Bathinda vs. DCIT (TDS), wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee vide order of the even date observing as follows : "4. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. In addition to his argument on the merits, learned counsel has also invited our attention to the reports about the decisions of various Hon'ble....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a sum of two hundred rupees for every day during which the failure continues. (2) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible, as the case may be. (3) The amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid before delivering or causing to be delivered a statement in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C. (4) The provisions of this section shall apply to a statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion under clause (c) shall be granted to the deductor: Provided that no intimation under this sub-section shall be sent after the expiry of one year from the end of the financial year in which the statement is filed. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the statement" shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the statement- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such statement; (ii) in respect of rate of deduction of tax at source, where such rate is not in accordance with the provisions of this Act; (2) For the purposes of processing of statements under subsection (1), ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made in respect of the "fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E". There is no dispute that what is impugned in appeal before us is the intimation under section 200A of the Act, as stated in so many words in the impugned intimation itself, and, as the law stood, prior to 1st June 2015, there was no enabling provision therein for raising a demand in respect of levy of fees under section 234E. While examining the correctness of the intimation under section 200A, we have to be guided by the limited mandate of Section 200A, which, at the relevant point of time, permitted computation of amount recoverable from, or payable to, the tax deductor after making the following adjustments: (a). after ....