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 statement on 17.05.2011 and therefore, the limitation period for passing the order under section 201 expires on 31.03.2014, whereas, the order under section 201 has been passed by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2018. It was submitted that the said order is clearly passed beyond the limitation period as provided in section 201(3

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 statement on 17.05.2011 and therefore, the limitation period for passing the order under section 201 expires on 31.03.2014, whereas, the order under section 201 has been passed by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2018. It was submitted that the said order is clearly passed beyond the limitation period as provided in section 201(3

M/S PYRAMID DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. JOINT CIT RANGE 1, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of penalty expenses of ` 1,19,230, rent of ` 1,98,450 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for failure to deduct TDS

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 deducted in view of the amendments introduced in Section 194C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 vide Finance

SHEPHALI ANIL MALVIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals (Ms

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

3) of section 200 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact on availability of enabling the provisions w.e.f. 01.06.2015 only. The Finance Act, 2015 provides for the amendment to section 200A of the Act enabling the Assessing Officers to levy late filing fee for default of late filing of TDS

KHALID NADEEM ALLARAKHA,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 43A(3). Therefore, the said payment was declared and added to the income of the assessee. There was a difference in turnover and regarding non–deduction of TDS

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

LATITUDE INFRAVENTURES,NAGPUR vs. PCIT,NAGPUR-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

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

TDS of Rs.12,52,000 has been duly deposited with government and hence, disallowance under section 40a(ia) is not warranted. 8 Latitude Infraventures ITA no.349 & 350/Nag./2024 A.Y. 2016–17 & 2017–18 3.5 Therefore, the issues sought to be revised by the learned CIT does not result into any prejudice to the Revenue. Therefore, the twin condition of order

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 143(3) dt.18/08/2016/ Moreso, it had already been repaid on 04/10/2018 which is prior to the search conducted on 11/07/2019, addition of ` 12 lakh is not justified hence deleted and consequently, the interest of ` 3,99,600, on such unsecured loans is also deleted. For coming to such conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 143(3) dt.18/08/2016/ Moreso, it had already been repaid on 04/10/2018 which is prior to the search conducted on 11/07/2019, addition of ` 12 lakh is not justified hence deleted and consequently, the interest of ` 3,99,600, on such unsecured loans is also deleted. For coming to such conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 143(3) dt.18/08/2016/ Moreso, it had already been repaid on 04/10/2018 which is prior to the search conducted on 11/07/2019, addition of ` 12 lakh is not justified hence deleted and consequently, the interest of ` 3,99,600, on such unsecured loans is also deleted. For coming to such conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 143(3) dt.18/08/2016/ Moreso, it had already been repaid on 04/10/2018 which is prior to the search conducted on 11/07/2019, addition of ` 12 lakh is not justified hence deleted and consequently, the interest of ` 3,99,600, on such unsecured loans is also deleted. For coming to such conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 143(3) dt.18/08/2016/ Moreso, it had already been repaid on 04/10/2018 which is prior to the search conducted on 11/07/2019, addition of ` 12 lakh is not justified hence deleted and consequently, the interest of ` 3,99,600, on such unsecured loans is also deleted. For coming to such conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

section 143(3) dt.18/08/2016/ Moreso, it had already been repaid on 04/10/2018 which is prior to the search conducted on 11/07/2019, addition of ` 12 lakh is not justified hence deleted and consequently, the interest of ` 3,99,600, on such unsecured loans is also deleted. For coming to such conclusion, we rely on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Delhi

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS statements under sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact on availability

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS statements under sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact on availability

M/S CHAMPAK MINES AND MINERALS ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTATN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the 111 appeals preferred by the different assessees

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

TDS statements under sub-section (3) of section 200 of the Act. There is no dispute about the fact on availability