NAM GROUP ASLALI,AHMEDABAD vs. AO, CPC, BANGALORE-PRESENT -THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD
ITA 1611/AHD/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2025AY 2023-24
Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1610/Ahd/2024 & 1611/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2022-23 & 2023-24 Respectively Nam Group Aslali The Ao, Cpc बनाम/ 172/1, Premchand House Bangalore - V/S. Old High Court Way Present Ito Ashram Road Ward-3(1)(1) Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Aaaan 0551 C (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/01/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both The Appeals, Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years (Ays) 2022-23 & 2023-24 & Arise From The Orders Passed By The Office Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal, Addl/Jcit-10 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] In Upholding The Levy Of Surcharge At The Maximum Marginal Rate Under Section 167B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”]. The Levy Of Surcharge Was Determined Pursuant To Intimations Issued By The Cpc, Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Act. Since The Facts & Grounds Of Appeal For Both Years Are Identical
For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastav, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 167BSection 167B(2)Section 26Section 67ASection 86
TDS being made in the name of Co- ownership in which shares of co-owners are specific.
3. He has erred in law and on facts in applying provision of section 86 and section 67A to the facts of the co-ownership having rental income to be assessed as per section 26 of the Income