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

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 143 is bad in law. Further the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) has erred in not adjudicating the issue. 5 That the Ld. AddI/JCIT (A) erred in holding that since the tax at source (TDS) on payment of Rs 2,06,50,000/- to the building contractor has not been deducted u/s 194C, 30

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed ` 5,84,367 (30

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed ` 5,84,367 (30

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

TDS under section 194A of the Act. Hence, the learned CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed ` 5,84,367 (30

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

TDS of Rs. 3,30,000/- on account of purchase of property from M/s\nAakar Hotels. Further the said deed was also duly registered on 29.03.2016\nand stamp duty of Rs. 18,15,000/-along with registration fees of Rs 30,000/-\nwas paid to the government on account of transfer of property.\nV.\nThe property was taken on lease

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

Section 30 of the I.T. Act. Taking into 30 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd) consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Department has not filed any supporting evidence/ rebuttal against the written submission ld. AR of the assessee except arguing that

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]

TDS Deductor. The assessee do not have any control on the amounts reflected as credits in Form No.26AS. The onus is on Revenue to prove that income is taxable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parimisetti Seetharmamma Vs. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC) has held as under : Quote “By sections 3 and 4 the Act imposes a general liability

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

30 days of received of order. Moreover, the concerned at the branch was transferred shortly after which led to oblivion towards the matter. Since then due to continuous changes of branch managers and no centralized handling of each individual branch orders, unintentionally branches have failed to comply with same. Also due to corona virus pandemic in last 2 years

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

30 days of received of order. Moreover, the concerned at the branch was transferred shortly after which led to oblivion towards the matter. Since then due to continuous changes of branch managers and no centralized handling of each individual branch orders, unintentionally branches have failed to comply with same. Also due to corona virus pandemic in last 2 years

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

30% of ` 46,41,297, on which TDS was not deducted. Such disallowance was made under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Effectively

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

30-03-2022, 24-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years. 2. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

30-03-2022, 24-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years. 2. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both

R.A. QUIDWAIM HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE (SCI & MCVC),CHANDRAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-52(3), CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

30-03-2022, 24-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years. 2. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both

R.A. QUIDWAIM HIGH SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE (SCI & MCVC),CHANDRAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-52(3), CHANDRAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

30-03-2022, 24-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years. 2. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

30-03-2022, 24-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years. 2. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both

NAIVEDHYAM BANQUETS AND FOODS PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

30-03-2022, 24-05-2022 and 23-05-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi upholding the charging of interest u/s. 234E of the Act in respect of above mentioned assessment years. 2. Since, the issues raised in all the appeals are similar basing on the same identical facts. Therefore, with the consent of both

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

30 to [38], the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession",- (a) in the case of any assessee- (1) any interest ******** (ia) any interest, commission or brokerage, [rent, royalty.] fees for professional services or fees for technical services payable to a resident, or amounts payable