HINGANGHAT NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA,HINGANGHAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 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

In the result, appeal by the assessee for A

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

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

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

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, 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

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

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

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

SANJAY KISAN CHOPDE,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.176/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjay Kisan Chopde, The Deputy Balaji Associates, Gs 37, Vs Commissioner Of Amar Jyoti Palace, Lomat Income Tax, Circle-1, Square, Wardha Road, Nagpur. Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Abapc6968N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Agrawal – Advocate Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Dated 30.3.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Dated 30.06.2016 For A.Y.2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Sanjay Kisan Chopde [A]

10% under section 194J (a section applicable when payee is a professional/ technical service provider). It was also stated that, the entries in the TDS statement hosted by the Department are based on the TDS returns filed by the deductors and as such the assessee has no control whatsoever on the entries made in such statements. Despite the forgoing explanations

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S. FUELCO COAL INDIA LTD., NAGPUR

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10.” The proviso to section 68 of the Act which was inserted by the Finance Act 2012, w.e.f. 01.04.2013 empowers the AO to examine the source of the source of the sum credited in the books of an assessee as share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount. In the impugned case, the credit was recorded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AKOLA CIRCLE , AKOLA vs. AKOLA URBAN CO-OPRATIVE BANK LTD , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

TDS was not deducted. Such disallowance was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Effectively, the business loss to be carried forward for subsequent years was reduced. Being aggrieved, appeal was preferred. 3 The Akola Urban Co–operative Bank Ltd. ITA no.119/Nag./2020 4. The learned CIT(A) elaborately dealt with the issue vide Para

INDOWORTH INDIA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT(TDS), CIRCLE 51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

section 201(3) the Financial Act, 2012. 3. The non–deduction TDS and interest thereon u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) on share application money of Rs.55,89,527/- amounting to Rs.22,45,596/- is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 4. That the levy of TDS on advance Share