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

M/S. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION,ETAWAH vs. DCIT(TDS), AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal

sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T. Act. 2. The facts are that the assessee is a deductor, i.e., the U.P. Government Construction Division. Survey proceedings were conducted on 16.12.2013 in order I.T.A No. 207/Agra/2016 2 to verify the correct applicability of the TDS

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

section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) erred in arriving at the short deduction on the amounts paid as interest on for without appreciating the fact that the parties on whom short deduction has been worked

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)

2% while as per the Revenue, same was to be deducted u/s 194J @ 10%, on account of which the assessee was treated assessee in default for short deduction of TDS. He submitted that in this case, assessment u/s 201(1 )/201(1A) of the Act was completed on 28.03.2014, wherein the AO has treated the assessee in default in respect

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)

201 on or after the Ist day of October, 1998 but before the lst day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time specified in that sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000. L.TA No. 54/AGR/2021 8 (3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

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

2) tabulated as above. 9. Ld. AR for the assessee has submitted that the impugned late filing fee has been imposed on the basis of section 200A (1)(c), which was inserted by finance Act 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015. The duration in the instant case is of prior to 01.06.2015. Ld. AR has referred consolidated order dated 31.05.2018 passed

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

2 ITA No. 745/Agr./2018 Finance Officer/Principal Officer short deduction of TDS involving demand of Rs.7,80,540/- u/s 201(1) along with the consequential interest component u/s 201(1A) of the Act amounting to Rs.7,49,307/-, in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 26.03.2018, as confirmed in the lower appellate discussion. We now advert to basic relevant facts

RAJIV ANAND & SONS,GWALIOR vs. ITO TDS, GWALIOR

In the result, all three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

2 I.T.A No.113 to 115/Agra/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2016-17) 3. Briefly, the facts are that the late fees have been levied by the AO u/s 234E of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has uphold the levy of 234E of the Act by relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ‘Rajesh Kaurani

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

2,16,260. 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

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

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

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)

2 District Basic Education Officer 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned Lower authorities have levied 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

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

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

2. There was a delay of 24 days in filing appeals in respect of 37 branches out of 88 branches located at distant places. 3. The counsel for the assessee has submitted that after receipt of the intimation/statement of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, the branches had to report to the respective regional head offices

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

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

2. There was a delay of 24 days in filing appeals in respect of 37 branches out of 88 branches located at distant places. 3. The counsel for the assessee has submitted that after receipt of the intimation/statement of levy of late fee u/s 234E of the Act, the branches had to report to the respective regional head offices

DCIT CIRCLE 1(1), GWALIOR vs. SWASTIK ROADLINES P LTD, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is treated as partly allowed for

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

TDS in excess of tax payable on returned income. I.T.A No. 146/Agra/2019 3 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee-company had furnished each and every information/documents sought for by the Assessing Officer. Ground Nos.1 & 2: 4. The Ld.DR for the Revenue had submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had wrongly allowed the disallowance u/s.40