ACIT CIRCLE-4, AGRA vs. JHANSI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JHANSI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar,And Dr. Mitha Lal Meenajhansi Development Authority Vs..Dcit Circle-4, Commissionerycompus, Agra. Jhansi. (Now The Dy. Cit Panno.Aaalj0068K (Exemption) Ghaziabad. (Assessee) (Revenue) Acit, 4(1), Vs..Jhansi Development Agra. Authority (Now The Dy. Cit Commissionerycompus, Jhansi. (Exemption) Ghaziabad. Panno.Aaalj0068K (Revenue) (Assessee)

5,&6). The Ld CIT(A) has again relied upon the comments of special auditor on Point no. 3 at page 51 of the Paper Book. Despite the objections by the assessee that the special auditor has no legal authority to decide the application of section 2(15) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) having admitted that

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),AGRA, AGRA vs. EMCO EXPORTS, AGRA

In the result, revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

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

2) is not merely a provision to provide information to the ITO(TDS). It is a provision requiring tax to be deducted at source to be paid to the Revenue by the payer who makes payment to a non-resident. Therefore, Section 195 has to be read inconformity with the charging provisions, i.e., Sections 4, 5

AGRA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AGRA vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-1, AGRA

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

5,56,40,365/- being the net profit arrived at by recasting profit and loss account. Application of proviso to section 2(15) read with section 17/8) and holding the activities of the assessee as non charitable is illegaland is against facts. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant is enjoying registration u/s 12A of the I.T.Act

MAMTA AGARWAL,ALIGARH vs. PCIT AGRA-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The AO noted that the actual total consideration for the said property was Rs. 4,71,04,002/-, while the Circle Rate for the same was Rs. 9,01,23,000/- and since the assessee had 1/3rd share in the property, the consideration paid by the Assessee

RAKESH AGARWAL ,ALIGARH vs. PCIT AGRA-1, AGRA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

section 56(2) (viib) of the Act. The AO noted that the actual total consideration for the said property was Rs. 4,71,04,002/-, while the Circle Rate for the same was Rs. 9,01,23,000/- and since the assessee had 1/3rd share in the property, the consideration paid by the Assessee

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

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

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 the action of learned Assessing Officer and dismissed assessee's\nappeal.\n4. Assessee has preferred this second appeal against the first

MAHIM PATRAN P. LTD,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT -2, AGRA

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

5) The CIT did not appreciate the following points: - (i) Section 199 of the Act, for credit of TDS to the assessee in whose income the amount on which TDS is deducted. Ii also allows the credit to any other person as per subsection (3) of the Act. (ii) Though the Rule 37BA prescribed by CBDT requires certain procedure

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

2 Developers. It came to the notice of the AO that the assessee has made various payments without deducting 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

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

2,99,309/- c) Sale of immovable property – Rs. 1,71,97,600/- d) Income from lottery / crossword puzzle in terms of section 194B based on the TDS return – Rs. 50,024 5

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

Appeal stand allowed

2-014, WP No. 11991/2014\npermitting assessee banker not to deduct TDS on such\nreimbursements. The assessee bank, following consistent practice,\n3\nconsidered LFC claim as exempt and computed tax liability\naccordingly. The same was under a bona-fide belief that even when\nthe journey involved a foreign leg, the employees would be entitled for\nexemption of Sec. 10(5

SUNITA,SAHU vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, notice is valid and also submitted that there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he asserted that the action of the JAO issuing notice is valid and doesn

ASHOK SAHU,JHANSI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(1), JHANSI, JHANSI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshashok Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purana Bazar, Chirgaon, Ward-2(3)(1), Jhansi Jhansi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgsps3446H Sunita, Vs. Assessment Unit, Ward No. 2, Chobyana Income Tax Talrehat Lake View Department, Camp, Lalitpur, Lalitpur, National Faceless Up Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Jgps3438H

5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, notice is valid and also submitted that there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he asserted that the action of the JAO issuing notice is valid and doesn

NARAYANI RATHORE,SHIVPURI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT,INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnarayani Rathore, Vs. Assessment Unit, Peeroth Shivpuri, Income Tax Shivpuri, Mp Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Dhgpr1886H

5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, notice is valid and also submitted that there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he asserted that the action of the JAO issuing notice is valid and doesn

BADARIPRASAD,GUNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER GUNA, GUNA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshbadriprasad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Heerabagh Colony, Guna, Guna, Gwalior Gwalior (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Arapr6314B

5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, notice is valid and also submitted that there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he asserted that the action of the JAO issuing notice is valid and doesn

HARICHARAN RATHORE,ASHOK NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,ASHOK NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshharicharan Rathore, Vs. Ito, 125, Path Kheda, Ashok Ashok Nagar, Nagar, Mp Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Csqpr0999M Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Shri Manuj Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026

5. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, notice is valid and also submitted that there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he asserted that the action of the JAO issuing notice is valid and doesn

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

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 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