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

TDS to be deducted while making payment of FTS in terms of Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act. 57. A plain reading of Section 90 (2) of the Act, makes it clear that the provisions of the DTAA would prevail over the Act unless the Act is more beneficial to the Assessee. Therefore, except to the extent a provision

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

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

4. 183/Agr/2022 2017-18 The DCIT (TDS) CIT/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & 201 Oriental order No. Insurance ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- Co. Ltd. 23/1045748939(1) Dated 21.09.2022 5. 184/Agr/2022 2018-19 The DCIT (TDS) CIT/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & 201 Oriental order No. Insurance ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- Co. Ltd. 23/1045749018(1) Dated 21.09.2022 6 185/Agr/2022 2019-20 The DCIT (TDS) CIT/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & 201 Oriental order

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

Appeal stand allowed

TDS. The cited case law of Hon'ble Apex Court in the\ncase of Pricewaterhouse Coopers P. Ltd (supra) duly supports the\ncase of the assessee. It was held by Hon'ble court that imposition of\npenalty was not warranted since the assessee had committed an\ninadvertent and bona fide error and not intended to conceal its income.\nRespectfully following

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

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.

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 u/s 200A was prospective in nature and therefore, no computation of fee for demand or intimation u/s 200A could be made for the TDS deducted for the respective Assessment

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

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

TDS) has erred in levying a penalty of Rs. 35,100/- 4 | P a g e ITA No. u/s 272A(2) (k) for not filing the statement in prescribed Form No. 24Q for first Quarter as provided in section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASHOKNAGAR vs. AJIT SINGH , SHIVPURI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (Through Virtual Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ajit Singh, Ashoknagar, Village-Haatodh, Madhya Pradesh Post-Kota, Shivpuri (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ccnps7470K Assessee By : Shri Vipin Upadhyay, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2025

TDS return – Rs. 50,024 5. Since the aforesaid transactions were above the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, the Learned AO proceeded to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act after obtaining necessary approval of the competent authority. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act stood issued to the Assessee on 30-3-2021, which

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 of the Act. Further, the assessee had sold a property on 25-10-2013 for Rs 4

PANKAJ SUJORIA,MANSAROVAR COLONY vs. ITO 1(1), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Pankaj Sujoria, Vs. Ito, A-481, Mansarovar Ward-1(1), Colony, Shahpura, Gwalior Bhopal, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arzps0280L Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

TDS of Rs 32,318/-. Pankaj Sujoria 4. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. I find that the Assessee had not filed his return of income under section

SHYAM SINGH YADAV,GWALIOR vs. ITO 2(2), GWL, GWALIOR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shyam Singh Yadav, Vs. Ito, Opp. Doordarshan Kendra, Ward-2(2), Thatipur Gaon, Morar, Gwalior, Mp Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Abhpy8702B Assessee By : Shri S. C. Jain, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shalenndra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/02/2025

4 That the AO failed to allow credit of TDS Rs.1,31,032 while computing the Tax 26AS, which were either on record or available on portal 5 That the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 17,78,091/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under the head "Income from House

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

TDS had been made on the payment of interest. 4. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee pointed out that as per prevailing provisions of law in this regard, if the payee is shown to have paid taxes on the income and the certificate in this regard in form 26A from an accountant is furnished by the assessee, the assessee cannot