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

section 194C of the Act relating to payment made to Ronit Developers. He submitted that the issues is of disallowance of Rs.7,99,263/- for non-deduction of TDS. In this regard, he brought to our notice pages 22 to 29 of the paper book wherein a Chartered Accountant certificate was enclosed wherein it was certified that the assessee

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

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

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

6 185/Agr/2022 2019-20 The DCIT (TDS) CIT/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & 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

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

SURBHI ANAND,SOUTH DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AGRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2023-24] Surbhi Anand, Acit, C-155, Basement, Lajpat Circle-1(1)(1), Nagar-2, South Delhi, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Sanjay Place, Delhi-110024 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282002 Pan-Acypa6580B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sahib P. Satsangi, Ca Respondent By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.10.2025 Order, Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

TDS of Rs.24,04,000 claimed without appreciating that the appellant had declared his income chargeable under the head 'income from other sources' on mercantile system/accrual basis of accounting regularly employed by him in terms of section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and deposited tax thereon himself resulted in payment of tax twice on the same income. 5. During

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

section.” 8. Both the authorities below had noted several expenses incurred by the assessee to be without TDS and in absence of any cooperation from the assessee in this regard, disallowance of these expenses were made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act amounting in all to Rs.9,53,000/-. The expenses which attracted impugned disallowance are as under : Expenses

ANKITA PALIWAL,ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALIGARH

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

Bench: : Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19

section 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act. 6. That each of the above mentioned grounds are without prejudice to one another and the appellant craves leave to add/amend to the grounds in interest of justice at any time before the disposal of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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 statements in Form 24Q. The penalty provision under Section 272A(2) is subject to the saving clause under Section 273B. Section 273B, which provides immunity from penalty if reasonable cause is established for such failure. In the instant case, the appellant assessee has contended that he was not afforded proper opportunity to make his submissions before the authorities below

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

6. We are of the considered view that there is hardly any valid reason for us to concur with the learned lower authorities impugned action. We make it clear first of all that section 192 of the Act forming part of Chapter-XVII admittedly prescribes TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTD, DELHI

6 suppliers were\nbogus suppliers and they did not actually supply any material to the\nassessee.\n3.3\nIn the assessment order, Ld. AO, taking average yield to be\n40%, reached a conclusion that almost 1/10th of purchases were bogus\npurchases. The assessee challenged the finding and submitted that the\nLd. AO did not make any distinction between two units

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

Section 200A, the aforesaid view will not permit the deductor to reopen the said question unless he has made payment under protest.” 6. In view of the above, respectfully following ‘Shri Fatehraj Singhvi and Others’ (supra), ‘Sibia Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS