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

16. A survey u/s 133A of the IT Act was conducted on assessee on 11.01.2013. During the course of the survey, the department found that the assessee had not deducted TDS u/s 194A in respect of interest on FDR paid to trust. On 19.03.2015- order under section

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)

16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers on the authority after

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)

16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers on the authority after

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)

16 of the UPUPD Act prohibits use of any land or building in contravention of the plans. 11 Chapter VII deals in finance, accounts and audit of the authority as per the norms issued by the State Government. I may be allowed to read the whole chapter:- 12 Section 29 provides conferment of other powers on the authority after

GUMAN SINGH KUSHWAH,SHIVPURI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshgumnam Singh Kushwah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Infront Of Collector Kothi, Ashok Nagar, Shiv Colony, Shivpuri, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bcjpk2729Q Assessee By : Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 22/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 22/01/2026

16,260. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19-12-2016 determining total income at Rs. 9,86,530. The Learned AO noted in the assessment order that as per information available, the assessee had purchased residential plot for Rs. 71 lakhs and seller has not provided his PAN to the assessee

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

16 City Center, BPLS03007E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sarangpur, Rajgarh Group of SBI and Ors. 17- 34-36/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 18 City Center, BPLS06616B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Rajnagar, Chattarpur 19- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 19,21,22 & 23 State Bank of 22 City Center, BPLS09930E /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Gallamandi, Bhind 23. 24/Ag/2018

STATE BANK OF INDIA,GWALIOR vs. CIT A , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA No.42/Agr/2018 is allowed for statistical

16 City Center, BPLS03007E A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Sarangpur, Rajgarh Group of SBI and Ors. 17- 34-36/Ag/2018 ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K State Bank of 18 City Center, BPLS06616B A.Y.2013-14 India, Branch- Gwalior Rajnagar, Chattarpur 19- ITO (TDS), AAACS8577K 19,21,22 & 23 State Bank of 22 City Center, BPLS09930E /Ag/2018 India, Branch- Gwalior A.Y.2013-14 Gallamandi, Bhind 23. 24/Ag/2018

SMT ARCHANA DUTTA,MATHURA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3, MATHURA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Archana Dutta, Prop. M/S Vs..Acit,Circle-3, Dutta & Dutta Construction, Co., Mathura. 77E Dutta & Dutta Construction, Govind Nagar, Mathura. Panno.Afxpd7557B (Assessee) (Revenue)

TDS.” 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of Civil Contractor and work of road construction under government departments. Return of income was e-filed on 24.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs. 17,96,170/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. However, the assessment was completed by the AO at a total income of Rs.1

GARRISON EMGOMEER (E/M),AIR FIRCE STATION,MAHARAJPUR vs. JCIT.(TDS), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M),GWALIOR vs. ITO,(TDS),, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON EMGOMEER (E/M) AIR FORCE STATION , MAHARAJPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS),, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON ENGINEER(E/M),MAHARAJPUR vs. ITO.,(TDS), , GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M), MAHARAJPUR vs. ITO.,(TDS), GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M),MAHARAJPUR vs. JCIT., (TDS), BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M),GWALIOR vs. ITO.(TDS), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

GARRISON ENGINEER (E/M) AIR FORCE STATION,MAHARJPUR vs. JCIT(TDS),, BHOPAL

In the result, ITA Nos. 128 to 131/Agr/2021 and ITA Nos

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

TDS) has levied a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 271H for not filing/default or inaccurate furnishing of information the statement in prescribed form no: 24Q for first quarter as provided in section 200(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, whereas, it was not leviable in case of Government office. Alternatively, the penalty u/s 271H is not leviable merely

M/S R.K. BAJPAI,AURAIYA vs. CIT -1, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenam/S R.K. Bajpai, Vs..Dcit,Circle-1, Dibiyapur, Auraiya. Agra. Panno.Aaffr8521G (Assessee) (Revenue)

section 194-1, and he is correct in law in making disallowance of Rs.4,92,250/- u/s 40(a)(ia).” 10. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that before the AO, in the subsequent assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted the ledger copy and 8 copies of bills and vouchers (APB 137 to 151) to prove that

SHRI SWAMI RAM SWAROOP SHARMA,MATHURA vs. ITO WARD 3(4), MATHURA

In the result, both the appeals are treated as allowed, for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenakapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Revenue) (Assessee) Kapil Sharma, Executor Of The Vs..Ito,3(4), Estate Of Late (Shri) Ram Swaroop Mathura. Sharma, Gandhi Marg, Vrindavan, Mathura. C/O R.M. Mehta S-125, Panchsheel Park (First Floor), New Delhi Pan:Anhps1936P (Assessee) (Revenue)

sections 147/143(3) of the Act. 10. The ld. DR has objected to the admission of the sale deed, as according to him, the sale deed dated is 29.12.2007 and it ought to have been filed before the AO, which was not done. 6 &ITA No. 146/Agra/2017 11. Having considered the matter in the light of the rival contentions