HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to amount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered

HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX WARD-1, WARDHA

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS is deducted. It is seen that the assessee has not filed his return of income for AY 2015-16. The above transactions, total to amount Rs.1,32,51,842/- remain unexplained and there is escapement of income in absence of return of income filed. Thus income from above transaction has not been offered

ITO WARD-1(1) NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. ASHWAMI SALES AND MARKETING PVT.LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10) When on the basis of the record it is not disputed that the requirements of further proviso were fulfilled, the assessee was not required to make any deduction at source on the payments made to the sub-contractors. If that be our conclusion, application of section 40(a)(ia) would not arise since, as already noticed, section

TATANLAL BIHARILAL ATAL,,AMARAVATI vs. ITO, WARD- 1,, AMARAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

section 10(37) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that the HUFs have not claimed credit for TDS in 5

BANK OF INDIA,SIHORA BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

10 Bank of India Nagpur–440 001 PAN No: AAACB0472C v/s ACIT, CPC,TDS(Ghaziabad) Uttar Pradesh–201 010 ..…….………. Respondent ITA No.147/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Bank of India, Centralised Pension Processing Centre Branch Nagpur Zonal Office 3rd Floor, CSD department …………… Appellant Kingsways Nagpur–440 001 PAN No: AAACB0472C v/s ACIT, CPC,TDS(Ghaziabad) Uttar Pradesh–201 010 ..…….………. Respondent

BANK OF INDIA ,PRASHEONI BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

10 Bank of India Nagpur–440 001 PAN No: AAACB0472C v/s ACIT, CPC,TDS(Ghaziabad) Uttar Pradesh–201 010 ..…….………. Respondent ITA No.147/Nag./2022 (Assessment Year : 2014–15) Bank of India, Centralised Pension Processing Centre Branch Nagpur Zonal Office 3rd Floor, CSD department …………… Appellant Kingsways Nagpur–440 001 PAN No: AAACB0472C v/s ACIT, CPC,TDS(Ghaziabad) Uttar Pradesh–201 010 ..…….………. Respondent

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

TDS No. Deducted 1 Amarchand Omprakash Kasat 4,200 - 2 Arihant Corporation 30,667 3,067 3 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal 1,100 - 4 Ashok Bharatlal Agrawal (HUF) 11,025 1,103 5 Baba Accosiates 1,07,000 10,700 6 Bilala Refinaries 1,02,000 10,200 7 Chandadevi B Khandelwal 73,608 7,361 8 Chetan Ashok Agrawal

I.T.O.(T.D.S.) WARD 2(3), CHANDRAPUR vs. ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD UNIT AWARPUR CEMENT WORKS,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

TDS was being made on identical payments to transporters. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating that by virtue of amendment to section 194C(6) w.e.f. 16-2015 an exemption has been provided to transporters owning up to 10

ASHWIN SURESH CHANDAK,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD, TDS 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 200A of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS return filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed." 6 Ashwin Suresh Chandak 8. We find that the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in S.S.S. Construction (supra) is squarely applies to the assessee’s case. Apart from this

DAMMANI INDUSTRIES,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD, TDS 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 200A of the Act for the processing of quarterly TDS return filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed." 6 Dammani Industries ITA no.121/Nag./2024 8. We find that the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in S.S.S. Construction (supra) is squarely applies to the assessee’s case. Apart

SUNILKUMAR RAJENDRA RAI,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2013-14. Sunilkumar Rajendra Rai vs TDS Ward, Nagpur ITA no.286/Nag./2023 The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:– 2. “ Grounds of Appeal Tax Effect 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in condoning the delay

DR AMBEDKAR INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL WORK,NAGPUR MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The solitary issue that needs to be resolved in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether the Assessing Officer can levy late fee prescribed under section 234E of the Act, when the quarterly return filed

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y.2014–15 “Any sum received by the assessee from any of his employee to which the provision of sub-clause(x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assesse to the employee‟s account in the relevant fund or funds on or before

BANK OF INDIA,UMRED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CPC.TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The solitary issue that needs to be resolved in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether the Assessing Officer can levy late fee prescribed under section 234E of the Act, when the quarterly return filed

BANK OF INDIA, PANCHGAON,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The solitary issue that needs to be resolved in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether the Assessing Officer can levy late fee prescribed under section 234E of the Act, when the quarterly return filed

BANK OF INDIA, ARMORI ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy

5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The solitary issue that needs to be resolved in the given facts and circumstances of the case is whether the Assessing Officer can levy late fee prescribed under section 234E of the Act, when the quarterly return filed

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10,000, aggregating to ` 19,47,890. The Assessing Officer further asked the assessee to deduct TDS under section 194A of the Act, which was not done by the assessee. The assessee was aware about the provisions of TDS as it is evident from audit report in Form No 3CD that the assessee has deducted tax at source on payment

VIVEKANAND NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PULGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, WARDHA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10,000, aggregating to ` 19,47,890. The Assessing Officer further asked the assessee to deduct TDS under section 194A of the Act, which was not done by the assessee. The assessee was aware about the provisions of TDS as it is evident from audit report in Form No 3CD that the assessee has deducted tax at source on payment