THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION)STATE BANK OF INDIA,)N,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT (TDS), KANPUR

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 287/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 289/Agr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Chief Manager (Administration) Addl. Cit (Tds) State Bank Of India Kanpur बनाम/ Regional Business Office (Rbo), Vs. 372/44, Gwalior Road Civil Lines, Jhansi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Agrs-14799-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Deepak Maheshwari, Adv.-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2015-16 & 2017-18 Arises Out Of Separate Orders Of First Appellate Authority. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Identical I.E., Confirmation Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C. First, We Take Up Appeal For Ay 2015-16 Which Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 271C.

exempt u/s 10(5) which do not require any TDS. No TDS was deducted under bona fide impression that if the destination

THE CHIEF MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) STATE BANK OF INDIA,JHANSI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT(TDS), KANPUR

The appeal stand allowed

exempt u/s 10(5) which do not require any TDS. No TDS was deducted under bona fide impression that if the destination

SURESH CHAND AGRAWAL HUF,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3)(1), MATHURA, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshsuresh Chand Agarwal Huf, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mp Agarwal Street, Mansani, Ward-1(3)(1), Mathura, Up Mathura (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aabhs6117F Assessee By : Shri M. M. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 23/01/2026

TDS of Rs 9,32,000/-. It is not in Suresh Chand Agarwal HUF dispute that the proceeds received on compulsory acquisition of the property is exempt

ALLAHABAD BANK,ALIGARH vs. ITO TDS & SURVEY , ALIGARH

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS liability in respect of the depositors who are exempts from tax. ITA Nos. 229 to 235/Agr/2017 2 5. Because

AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

TDS. He brought to our notice 2 | P a g e two parties, to whom the assessee has paid oasis agency commission, B & G Export Corporation PTY Ltd. and Red Coral Business Consultants. He submitted that Oasis are exempt

ACIT CIRCLE-3(1), GWALIOR vs. SMT. ASHA DEVI SHIVHARE, GWALIOR

Exemption), Vikas Lok Sewa Samiti Friends AAAAV9650Q Colony, Etawah. A.Y. 2011-12 Agra. Sh. Suresh Chandra Yadav, S/o 63. 202/Agr/2018 ITO (AO) Ward- ABQPY5099J A.Y. 2012-13 1(1), Aligarh Shri Chandra Pal Singh Yadav, AsadpurKayam, Aligarh, The Secretary District Health 64. 122/Agr/2016 ITO (TDS

JHASI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. DY. C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon following judicial orders:-  Jammu Development Authority [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 343 [ Page No. 8 of JOPB No. 1 ]  Indore Development Authority ITA No.366/Ind/2008 dt.06.07.2010 [ Page No. 17 of JOPB No.1 ] In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO (Page

JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JHANSI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon following judicial orders:-  Jammu Development Authority [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 343 [ Page No. 8 of JOPB No. 1 ]  Indore Development Authority ITA No.366/Ind/2008 dt.06.07.2010 [ Page No. 17 of JOPB No.1 ] In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO (Page

ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

exemption u/s 11 of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer has also relied upon following judicial orders:-  Jammu Development Authority [2012] 23 Taxmann.com 343 [ Page No. 8 of JOPB No. 1 ]  Indore Development Authority ITA No.366/Ind/2008 dt.06.07.2010 [ Page No. 17 of JOPB No.1 ] In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the findings of the AO (Page

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

exemption u/s 11 and 12 of I.T.Act 1961 as well as its activities be held to be charitable in nature. (5) Because The CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs 5,56,40,365/- being the net profit arrived at by recasting profit and loss account. Application of proviso to section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,VRINDAVAN vs. CIT APPEALS 1, AGRA

In the result, ITA No. 65/Agra/2017 is allowed, whereas ITA

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

TDS u/s 194A in respect of interest on FDR paid to trust. On 19.03.2015- order under section 201(1)/ 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, was passed and a demand of Rs. 7,32,951/- was raised. 17. Appeal was filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-l, Agra who has decided the appeal partly in favor

OMKAR MEMORIAL CHARITABLE SOCIETY ,GWALIOR vs. CIT[EXEMPTION], BHOPAL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Omkar Memorial Vs. Cit(E), Charitable Society, Bhopal Room No. 201, Ii Floor, Reac, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaa08054B Assessee By : Shri K. Sampath, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2025

Exemptions) (hereinafter referred as “ld CIT(E) in short) was justified in rejecting the application for grant of registration u/s 12AB of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee is a charitable society and was granted provisional registration. The assessee

MANISH MAHESHWARI,GWALIOR vs. JCIT RANGE-2, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him Though Specific Request Was Made To Admit The Same. Ground No. 2 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed Theaddition Of Rs. 67,530/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act. (Ii) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Legally Erred In Rejecting The Appellant'Sspecificsubmissionand The Unavoidable Circumstances Under Which The Payment Wasmade. Ground No. 3 (I) Because The Ld. Cit(A) Has Wrongly, Illegally & Arbitrarily Confirmed An Addition Of Rs. 1,11,038/- Made By The Assessing Officer By Disallowing The Claim Of Interest Paid Holding The Same To Be Not Allowable U/S 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act.”

TDS of Rs. 1236/-. The interest was allowed by the learned J.C.I.T. as allowable expenditure while passing the assessment order. The depositor is a salaried employee and amount advanced out of salary savings to earn interest for a period of six month. The amount has been received by the appellant through account payee cheque and refunded by account payee cheque

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Telangana - 174 taxmann.com 1203 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Telangana - 174 taxmann.com 1203 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Telangana - 174 taxmann.com 1203 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Haricharan Rathore Telangana - 174 taxmann.com 1203 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

Exemptions Ward, Trichy. - Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai - ITA Nos.2416 & 2417/CHNY/2024 13 24.04.2025 Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax High Court of Telangana - 174 taxmann.com 1203 Badriprasad 5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction

AARA AGRO PVT. LTD.,AGRA vs. DY.CIT., CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AGRA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenalt.A No. 54/Agr/2021 (Assessment Year: 2018-19) Vs. Cit Circle-2 (1)(1) Agra Agro Private Limited Agra U.P. Anjana Cinema, 3/2 D.M.G. Road Agra U.P. 282007 Pan: Aagca8595F (Revenue) (Assessee)

exempt him from the operation of the provisions of that clause." In the instant case, the appellant filed the appeal against the Order u/s 6. 143(1) of the Act, which was served upon him on 03-06-2019. The appeal was required to be filed within 30 days i.e. by 04-07-2019. However, it was belatedly filed