THE REGIONAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA ,FARRUKHABAD vs. ITO (TDS) , ALIGARH

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

TDS, show cause notices dated\n04.01.2021 and 11.02.2021 were issued by the Assessing Officer, but the\nappellant/assessee did not make any submission. Therefore, the deductor\nassessee was held by revenue as ‘assessee in default' u/s. 201(1) read\nwith section 192

THE FINANCE OFFICER/ PRINCIPAL OFFICER, ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY,ALIGARH vs. ITO(TDS), ALIGARH-202001

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

TDS u/s 192 of the Act. 5. Both the parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned section 201(1

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND,BHIND vs. AESSESSING OFFICER TDS OFFICE, AAYAKAR BHAVWAN CITY CENTRE FLOOR FIRST

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in 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)’, in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in 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)’, in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in 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)’, in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part

CIVIL SURGEON CUM HOSPITAL SUPERINTANDENT BHIND (M.P.),BHIND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS OFFICE GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, assessee’s appeals ITA Nos

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

1) and 201(1A) on the amount of TDS whereas in 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)’, in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 dtd. 09.04.2018 authored by one of us (the Ld. J.M.). The relevant part

KAMLESH KATARE,GWALIOR vs. ITO, TDS-GWALIOR, GWALIOR

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 111/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Kamlesh Katare Ito (Tds) बनाम/ 79, Jotinagar, Thatipur Gwalior Vs. Morar, Gwalior "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir/Tan No.Bplk-03165-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashok Vijaywargiya, Ca- Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shailendra Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aggrieved By Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Qua Tds Return In Form 26Q For 4Th Quarter Of Financial Year 2012-13, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. 2. From The Records, It Emerges That The Assessee Was Saddled With Later Filing Fees U/S 234E For Rs.22,800/- While Processing Tds Return As Filed By The Assessee. The Assessee Sought Rectification Thereof U/S 154 Which Was Rejected By Ld. Ao. Aggrieved, The Assessee Filed Further Appeal Which Met With No Success. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us.

1-4-2015 is permitted to be reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E shall remain open to be considered by the Division Bench and shall not get concluded by the order of the learned Single Judge." It was thus held that amendment

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS,GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: ITA No. 03 to 06/Agr/2022 4 “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI’, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPS-TDS, GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: ITA No. 03 to 06/Agr/2022 4 “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI’, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A

SHRI RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY ,MATHURA vs. ACIT,CPC-TDS, , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: ITA No. 03 to 06/Agr/2022 4 “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI’, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A

SH. RAM PRASAD VERMA PURVA MADHYAMIC VIDHYALAY,MATHURA vs. ACIT-CPC TDS., , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: : Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Laliet Kumar

TDS)’ in ITA No. 442/Agra/2017 vide order dtd. 09.04.2018. The relevant part of the order is reproduced as follows: ITA No. 03 to 06/Agr/2022 4 “3. Heard. The ld. CIT(A), while deciding the matter against the assessee, has placed reliance on ‘Rajesh Kaurani vs. UOI’, 83 Taxmann.com 137 (Guj), wherein, it has been held that section 200A

BABOO LAL NIMORIA,MATHURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-3(1), MATHURA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS of Rs.4,040/-.\nSince the assessee has declared gross receipts of Rs.3,49,31,066/- which\nincluded labour and wages payment of Rs.38,15,744/- made directly by HCCL.\nHe observed that gross receipts as confirmed by HCCL were acceptable,\nhowever he observed that assessee has not incorporated the gross receipt from\nM/s. Deep & Veer Construction. Further he observed