M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable therefore the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the income Tax Act are not attracted hence the addition was unwarranted and illegal. 6. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,45,832/- maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per 11.2 of the order

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. C.IT,(OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable therefore the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the income Tax Act are not attracted hence the addition was unwarranted and illegal. 6. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,45,832/- maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per 11.2 of the order

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING(P).LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable therefore the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the income Tax Act are not attracted hence the addition was unwarranted and illegal. 6. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,45,832/- maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per 11.2 of the order

M/S KESARWANI <ARKETING (P) LTD,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

194C of the Income Tax Act is not applicable therefore the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the income Tax Act are not attracted hence the addition was unwarranted and illegal. 6. That in any view of the matter addition of Rs. 2,45,832/- maintained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as per 11.2 of the order

MAHAVIR PRASAD SATISH CHANDRA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) , ALLAHABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year 2013-14

6- That in any view of the matter the appellant reserves his right to take any fresh grounds of appeal before hearing of appeal.” 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is regarding disallowance of Rs.22,73,457/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 40(a)(ia) as the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the payment

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. On verification, it is found that the payments mentioned in the said list attracting TDS provisions are subjected to TDS and also covered in 26Q statements except the payments given in the table below where TDS has been short deducted as payees are in the status of Firm/Company on which TDS rate

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. On verification, it is found that the payments mentioned in the said list attracting TDS provisions are subjected to TDS and also covered in 26Q statements except the payments given in the table below where TDS has been short deducted as payees are in the status of Firm/Company on which TDS rate

SECRETARY, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH,ALLAHABAD vs. IT OFFICER, T.D.S., ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. On verification, it is found that the payments mentioned in the said list attracting TDS provisions are subjected to TDS and also covered in 26Q statements except the payments given in the table below where TDS has been short deducted as payees are in the status of Firm/Company on which TDS rate

ITO(TDS),, ALLAHABAD vs. LOK SEWA AYOG,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Ito (Tds), V. Public Service Commission 38, M.G. Marg, Civil Lines, (Lok Sewa Aayog), Allahabad,Up Uttar Pradesh, Stanley Road, Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Secretary, V. The Income Tax Officer (Tds), Public Service Commission Aaykar Bhawan, (Lok Sewa Aayog), 38, M.G. Marg, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad,Up Stanley Road Allahabad,Up Tan: Aldl00365B (Appellant) (Respondent)

194C of the I.T. Act, 1961. On verification, it is found that the payments mentioned in the said list attracting TDS provisions are subjected to TDS and also covered in 26Q statements except the payments given in the table below where TDS has been short deducted as payees are in the status of Firm/Company on which TDS rate

M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS,ALLAHABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

6 (Six) credits made in TDS certificate in respect of BSNL ED. Jodhpur. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,86,679/- on account of contractual receipt despite the fact that as per Rule 37BA the credit for TDS and paid to the Central Government shall be given for the assessment year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, ALLAHABAD vs. M/S DEORA ELECTRIC WORKS, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both appeals i

6 (Six) credits made in TDS certificate in respect of BSNL ED. Jodhpur. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,99,86,679/- on account of contractual receipt despite the fact that as per Rule 37BA the credit for TDS and paid to the Central Government shall be given for the assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, MIRZAPUR vs. M/S. J.P.YADAV , SONEBHADRA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA no

Bench: Shrivijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

TDS u/s 194C of the 1961 Act. 9 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT Circle-3, Mirzapur, U.P. v. M/s J.P. Yadav Sonebhadra,U.P. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance made by the AO u/s 40a(ia) of the 1961 Act of Rs. 11,37,000/- cannot be sustained and was , thus, deleted by ld. CIT(A). 6

SHAKUNTALA KUSHWAHA,ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3), ALLAHABAD

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as allowed

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: 2009-10 Shakuntala Kushwaha V. Income Tax Officer 2(3) 105/54, Kareli Allahabad Allahabad Tan/Pan:Aodpk2329D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A. Respondent By: Shri S. K. Madhuk, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 12 02 2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 02 2020

6. Before the ld. CIT(A), the submission of the assessee was that there is no doubt that the assessee made freight payment to two transporters, namely Thangagaji Golden Transport Company and Delhi Rajasthan Company, amounting to Rs.8,09,896/- and ITA No.130/ALLD/2019 Page 3 of 5 Rs.1,71,216/-, totaling to Rs.9,32,378/-; that during the assessment proceedings