AL HAMD AGRO FOOD PRODUCTS PVT LTD,ALIGARH vs. DC/ACIT, ALIGARH

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment year 2020- 21. 2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2020-21, declaring income of Rs.45,99,37,860/- on 29.10.2020. Case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, notices

VEENA SINGH,GWALIOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), GWALIOR, GWALIOR

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

TDS of Rs.2,34,213/-. However, as the original return was filed belatedly under Section 139(4), the Assessing Officer observed that the revised return so filed was not acceptable. Further notice under Section 142(1) with a detailed questionnaire dated 14.12.2017 issued by Assessing Officer, went unanswered. The Assessing Officer, based on discrepancies and lack of explanations, made

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

TDS obligations, and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. Ld. DR, on the other hand, has submitted that sufficient opportunities were afforded to the appellant by ld. CIT(Appeals). He supported the impugned order. 6. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Learned CIT(Appeals), it is observed that although notices under section 250

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

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

Section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. The details of such penalties are as under : 3 | P a g e ITA No. Quarterly Quarter Due date Date of TDS Delay in Penalty statement of filing filing amount days in u/s. 272A Form No. filing @ Rs.100/ per day 24Q Q1 15.07.2011 Not filed 231388 351 35100/- 24Q Q2 15.10.2011 Not filed

MARSHAL SECURITY SERVICES,AGRA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as\n\"the Act\") for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has\ndismissed assessee's first appeal.\n2. Brief facts state that the assessee e-filed return of income on\n27.09.2016, declaring total income of Rs.21,55,530/-. Return was processed\nu/s

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

250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment years |shown as above, wherein learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders each dated 28.04.2024 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these

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

250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment years |shown as above, wherein learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders each dated 28.04.2024 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these

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

250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment years |shown as above, wherein learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders each dated 28.04.2024 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these

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

250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for the Assessment years |shown as above, wherein learned CIT(A) has confirmed the orders each dated 28.04.2024 passed u/s 154 r.w.s. 200A/206C of the Act by the CPC and dismissed assesee’s appeals. 2. At the very outset, we notice that registry has reported that all these

TOMAR AND BROTHERS,ETAWAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(5), ETAWAH

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: :Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Ground No. 1, 2 & 3 raised by the assessee relate to the addition of Rs.21,12,576/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) pertaining to expenses incurred by the assessee in respect of purchase of material, labourexpenses, repair and maintenance, establishment, selling and administrative expenses

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

250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Grounds raised by the assessee are as under : 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