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

section 200A, which is effective from 01.06.2015. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the following table containing the requisite particulars in respect of the TDS statements filed by the respective branches of the assessee wherein the late fee u/s 234E has been levied while processing the TDS statements by the ACIT TDS-CPC and which has been confirmed

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

section 200A, which is effective from 01.06.2015. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the following table containing the requisite particulars in respect of the TDS statements filed by the respective branches of the assessee wherein the late fee u/s 234E has been levied while processing the TDS statements by the ACIT TDS-CPC and which has been confirmed

DIGP GC CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

26. Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act before the Division concluded. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A

DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC(TDS) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

26. Under these circumstances, we find that no further discussion would be required for examining the constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act. Save and except to observe that the question of constitutional validity of Section 234E of the Act before the Division concluded. 27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A

M/S 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26 QB showing TDS of Rs 3,30,000/- on account\nof purchase of property from Aakar hotels. Thus Assessee gained long term\ncapital gain on above transaction.\niv.\nHowever in response to questionnaire, assessee submitted that the\nTDS is wrongly deducted as there is no transfer of property. The claim of the\nassessee that the TDS was wrongly deducted

BANK OF INDIA, DONGARGAON NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

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

TDS statements are filed, covers the financial years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. Considering the fact, the last quarter of the statement is filed in the financial year 2010-11, the time limits available to the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 3(i) of section 201 of the Act is two years from the end of the said

BANK OF INDIA,MAHAL BRANCH NAGPUR vs. DY.CIT(TDS)CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

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

TDS statements are filed, covers the financial years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. Considering the fact, the last quarter of the statement is filed in the financial year 2010-11, the time limits available to the Assessing Officer to pass an order u/s 3(i) of section 201 of the Act is two years from the end of the said

M/S ATASHA ASHIRWAD BUILDERS,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T (TDS) RANGE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 272A(2)(k) of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the assessee for the first time offered an explanation that prior to joining regular Principal in the college on 25.01.2010, only officiating Principal had been working, who did not have idea of e-TDS statements and requirement of filing the same. The Tribunal noted that the appellate authority

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

26 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 was given to the assessee. Thus assessee had discharged the onus which was on him as per the requirement of section 68 of the Act. What the Assessing Officer held was that sources of the source were suspect ie, he suspected the two sources Shri Rajendra Bahadur Singh and Smt. Sarojini Thakur

YASH TRAVELS AND TOURS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(2) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Yash Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward–2(2), Nagpur F–5, Shrdha House, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Kingsway, Nagpur–4440001. Nagpur–440001. [Pan: Aaacy3931D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

TDS is made, is clearly discernible at page No. 56 of PB (copy of Form-26 AS). However, the amount of original compensation of Rs. 13.08 Crore was treated as income from ‘other sources’. The treatment of such amount of compensation as income from ‘other sources’ is erroneous. We find that CBDT in its Circular No.36 of 2016 directed that

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TDS), CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(TDS), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, CIRCLE-51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022

BANK OF INDIA,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-51(1), NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

26 327/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2014-15 Nagpur main Branch 27 328/NAG/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Medical College Branch 28 338/Nag/2022 Bank of India, JCIT (OSD),TDS, 2012-13 R.T. Road Branch Circle-1, Nagpur 29 339/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Kamleshwar Branch 30 340/Nag/2022 Bank of India, -do- 2013-14 Saoner Branch 31 341/Nag/2022