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

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,AGRA vs. D.C.I.T (TDS),, KANPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita Nos. 180 To 185/Agr/2022 (Assessment Years: 2014-15 To 2019-20) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Cit(A)/Nfac, 8/13, F New Kaushalpur Bye Delhi/Dcit (Tds), Pass Road, Agra, U.P.- 282001 Kanpur "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No:Agrti0098E Appellant .. Respondent

201 Oriental order No. Insurance ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- Co. Ltd. 23/1045749075(1) Dated 21.09.2022 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee is an insurance company has been held as the “assesse-in-default” for not having deducted TDS on payment made to various dealers in the assessment years

GRAM VIKAS KALYAN SANSTHAN,MATHURA vs. I.T.O. (TDS), AGRA

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

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhgram Vikas Kalyan Sansthan, Vs. Income Tax Officer (Tds), Nagla Aklha, Sonkh – Goverdhan Road, Agra. Mathura – 281 123 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaatg3272E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajan Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

TDS while making these payments, as the aggregate of payments made to M/s MM advertisers, M/s Jagran Prakashan and M/s Unique Communication is more than the prescribed limits. The assessing officer is correct and law in holding the assessee as assessee in default, and raising demand in terms of the section 201 (1

MOON NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-1 AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

TDS against payment made to various broad casting channels), accordingly the AO has passed the order, treated the assessee in default for short deduction as well as u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. He submitted that against the order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 201(1)/201(1A), the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A) before whom

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

Appeal stand allowed

1)", "201(1A)"], "issues": "Whether penalty under Section 271C is leviable for short deduction of TDS on LFC to overseas

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 (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

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

DISTRICT BASIC EDUCATION OFFICER,HATHRAS vs. ITO TDS ALIGARH, ALIGARH

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalita No. 321/Agr./2024 (Assessment Year 2017-18)

section 271C penalty herein alleging non- deduction of TDS by the assessee/deductor, i.e. Uttar Pradesh Education, on payments made to various persons for carrying out the designated project assignments. The assessee/deductor is admittedly a government body who engaged various persons to whom payments in question have been held as consultancy services liable for TDS deduction u/s 194J

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

TDS at the rate of 1% only. For this, the Learned AO proceeded to make an addition of 30% of the purchase consideration amounting to Rs 21 lakhs(7100000 * 30%) by applying the provisions of section 201

HMA AGRO INDUSTRIES LIMITED,AGRA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AGRA, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

201(1)/201(1A) of the Act. 2. This appeal has been preferred on the grounds, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment order in violation of the principles of natural justice, and that the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the appellant as an ‘assessee in default’. 3. Perused

PRAGATI SINGH,GWALIOR vs. CIT, AAYKAR BHAVAN GWALIOR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year:2013-14

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Case The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.2,74,978 under section 40(a)(ia) is illegal unjustified and is bad in law. 2. The learned C.I.T.(A) erred in not restricting the disallowance to only 30% of Rs.2,74,978 as amended in section

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

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 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.160/AGR/2024, arises out of the order of the ld Ld. Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AACCC6834D Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR Date of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date of pronouncement 04/12/2025 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No. 99/AGR/2025 for AY 2012-13, arises out of the order of the National