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 in violation of provisions of section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). These payments included payments to :- i) M/s Ronit Developers Rs.2,20,99,263/- ii) M/s M.M. Advertiser Rs. 5,76,791/- iii) M/s Jagram Prakashan Ltd., Rs. 38,155/- iv) M/s Unique Communication Rs. 5,75,599/- 3. Since, the assessee should

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

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

section 192 of the Act and raised total demand of Rs.4,12,502/- (Rs.\n2,14,777/- as short deduction of TDS u/s. 201(1) and Rs.1,98,025/- as\ninterest on short deduction u/s. 201(1A) of the Act).\n3.\nAssessee preferred an appeal before learned CIT(Appeals), who\nafter considering the submissions and contentions of the appellant,\napproved

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

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

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

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 for complying the provisions of section

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

3 ITA No. 745/Agr./2018 Finance Officer/Principal Officer to have defaulted in non-deduction of it’s TDS u/s 192 of the Act. 5. Both the parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned section 201

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

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

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 of the order

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

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 of the order

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

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 of the order

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

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 of the order

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)

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 persons to whom payments

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

section 40(a)(ia) is illegal, unjustified and bad in law.” 3. The solitary issue in the present appeal relates to addition made to the income of the assessee of Rs.2,74,978/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of tax at source. A perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer reveals the assessee

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

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