SHRI SHANTILAL JAIN,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 Shanti Lal Jain V. Dcit Prop. Jain Advertising Agency Cpc, Tds Arya Samaj Market Ghaziabad Russel Chowk, Jabalpur Tan/Pan:Jbpso6909A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Anil Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 04 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 27/6/2018 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Taking The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Under The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Ex-Parte On 26/6/2018 While The Counsel'S Junior Had Filed The Application For Adjournment On 21/6/2018 For Extension Of Hearing For Further 20 Days But He Passed The Order On 26/6/2018 In Undue Haste. 2. That The Id. A.O. (Tds-Cpc) Had Wrongly Levied A Late Fees Of Rs.16,800/-And Issued Order U/S 200A Of The Act. 3. That The Id. A.O. Has Charged The Late Fee Of Rs.16,800/- Without Sanction Of Law As Subsection (3) Of The Section 234E Of The Act States It Shall Be Paid Before Delivering A Tds Statement. It Means That Any Late Fees Should Have Been Deposited Just At

TDS statement has been accepted without late fees, then such late fee cannot be recovered later on. In view of above, late fee cannot be recovered later on by way of any notice, no notice of demand u/s 156 can be issued for this. 5. That the Id. A.O. has failed to under stood that the provision of section

SHUBH ASSOCIATES HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeals are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

TDS statement has been accepted without late fees, then such late fee cannot be recovered later on. In view of above, late fee cannot be recovered later on by way of any notice, no notice of demand u/s 156 can be issued for this. 5. That the Id. A.O. has failed to under stood that the provision of section

SHUBH ASSOCIATES HOSPITAL PVT. LTD.,JABALPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeals are treated as allowed

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

TDS statement has been accepted without late fees, then such late fee cannot be recovered later on. In view of above, late fee cannot be recovered later on by way of any notice, no notice of demand u/s 156 can be issued for this. 5. That the Id. A.O. has failed to under stood that the provision of section

SWETA GOENKA,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMR TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

156/- (-) Rs.18,45,650/-} on account of receipts from Nagar Panchyat & Rs.19,33,432/- {Rs.59,65,200/- (-) Rs.40,31,768/-} on account of receipts from Nagar Palika Parishad. There is cumulative short disclosure of receipts from both the deductors under section 194C & 194J of the Act comes to Rs.25,73,938/- {Rs.6,40,506/- (+) Rs.19,33,432-}. Accordingly, the questioned

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

BRAHTAKAR KRISHI SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI MARYADIT,SAHAJPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

In the result, all the three appeals in ITA Nos

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

TDS was also deducted and it is duly reflecting in the Form 26AS and duly shown in the ITR and it was disallowed on frivolous grounds. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC was not justified in confirming the action of AO with regard to the deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the act without

M/S RPJ MINERALS PVT. LTD ,MAIHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,SATNA, SATNA

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

TDS of Rs. 10 ITA No.154/JAB/2016 ITA No.86/JAB/2022 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2017-18 M/s RPJ Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 50,0000/- have been deposited before the due date of the filing of the return, he gave relief for the same and added back an amount of Rs. 24,91,229/- under section 43B of the Act. 6. Aggrieved with the said