SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act and is also appealable u/s 246A

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act and is also appealable u/s 246A

SH. JASBIR SINGH ANAND,JADADHRI vs. ACIT, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

section 200A would be in the nature of a clarificatory amendment and further held that as a result an order passed u/s 200A of the Act in levying fees prescribed u/s 234E for late filing of TDS statements would be rectifiable u/s 154 of the Act and is also appealable u/s 246A

SH. SAURABH KAUSHIK,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Disposal Of The Same.

Section 194IA is a reasonable cause u/s 273B for not deducting income-tax at source. Hon'ble ITAT, in turn relied on following judgements of Honble Supreme Court: Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Vs. State of U.P. [118 ITR 326] • CIT v. P.S.S. Investments Private Limited, [(1977) 107 ITR 1(SC)] • In the case of Manish Jaiswal (supra), the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, FOCAL POINT

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, , AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DCIT CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, LUDHIANA

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LIMITED, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, - vs. ROCKMAN INDUSTRIES LTD, -

In the result order of CIT(A) is sustained as passed and the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

246A of the Act before CIT(A) who by the impugned order dt. 04/10/2023 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by placing reliance on the decision and order of this Tribunal in Assessee’s own case in ITA No. 1264/Chd/2018 dt. 20/08/2020. Proceedings before this Tribunal The Revenue being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed an appeal

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assesseee Is Aggrieved By The Common Order Bearing Number Itba/Apl/M/250/2019- 20/1021304437(1) Dt. 25/11/2019 Of Cit(A) Shimla, H.P. Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-17 & The Corresponding Previous Year Period Is From 01/04/2015 To 31/03/2016. 2. At The Outset The Registry Has Pointed Out That The Above Appeals Are Barred By Limitation By 02 Days.

section 201(1A)) was quantified / assessed leading to a demand by the Income Tax Department upon the assessee bank. 4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt. 09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act and by “impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed and the assessee bank appeal

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\nallowed

section 201(1A)) was quantified /\nassessed leading to a demand by the Income Tax Department upon the\nassessee bank.\n4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt.\n09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act\nand by \"impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed\nand the assessee bank appeal

THE H.P.STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,SIRMOUR vs. ITO(TDS), SOLAN

In the result, all the above appeals filed by the Assessee are\r\nallowed

section 201(1A)) was quantified /\r\nassessed leading to a demand by the Income Tax Department upon the\r\nassessee bank.\r\n4.5 That the assesse being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dt.\r\n09/01/2019 preferred a first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A of the Act\r\nand by \"impugned order” the aforesaid demand was partly confirmed

SH RAMESH KUMAR DUDANI,MOHALI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -6(1), MOHALI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

246A(q) is not applicable where request for rectification has been made under Section 154 of the Act. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, amend or delete one or more of the grounds of appeal before the appeal is disposed off. 3. Ground No. 2 was not pressed, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed

ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 292/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Vs. The Dcit बनाम (Tds Circle), Now Indian Bank Panchkula Sco 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Rtka02368C अपीलाथ"/ Assessee ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Shakti Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order

section 201, 201A of I.T Act, Though totally ignoring the fact that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause to file appeal within time. Thus the appellant order passed by CIT (Appeals) is totally wrong, illegal and unjustified. 3. That the various case laws relied upon by Ld. CIT (Appeals) are not applicable as facts of the cases