SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY,INDORE vs. ITO TDS-II, INDORE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

TDS and furnishing the requisite statement with in due time (the said provision inserted by Finance Act 2004 w.e.f. 01/04/2005). Section 234 E which provides for levy of fees if assessee is in violation of 200(3) or 206C(3) of the Act, is inserted by F.A.2012 w.e.f. 01/07/2012 .Therefore, since both the substantive legislation (section imposing statutory liability

BMG CALCUTTAWALA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,INDORE vs. AO CPC (TDS), ITO TDS(1) INDORE, INDORE

Appeals are allowed\"

Section 253 of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for\nsake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by\nthe order bearing Number ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-\n25/1071072719(1) dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)\nu/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the\n\"Impugned order”. The relevant Assessment Year

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from

VIMAL TODI,INDORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INDORE

Appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

246A, and the Commissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of such appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from

HEMLATA PATEL,DEWAS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DEWAS

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purpose

TDS in UK on\nthe pension income. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of\nthe Act in which credit of foreign tax claimed u/s 90/90A is\ndisallowed & demand is raised after nullifying the refund\nclaimed in ROI. It is required to be noted that in Annexure\nFSI (As provided by Taxpayer) country code is USA, income\nfrom outside India

SHIVGANGA DRILLERS P LTD,INDORE vs. CPC , BENGALURU

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

section 199 of the Income Tax Act since the corresponding income was duly offered for tax in the assessment year 2017-18 itself. c) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. AO (CPC) erred in charging interest u/s 234B and 234C

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,PIPLIYA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,BHESOLA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,SINGHANA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,SUSARI vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,PADIYAL vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,AMZERA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,BHESOLA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,AJANDA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,TIRGAON vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,LABRIYA vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,NISARPUR vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A

M.P.GRAMIN BANK ,JIBAT vs. THE ACIT,CPC -TDS , GHAZIABAD

In the result, all 10 appeals at the instance of assessee(s) are allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

1: 5. In this Ground, the assessees have claimed that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing first-appeals by wrongly observing that there was no “apparent mistake” in the intimations u/s 200A and the rejection of rectification-applications by Ld. AO was in order. 6. Facts qua this Ground are such that while passing intimations u/s 200A