SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CPC TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the respective assessee’s in ITA Nos

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.476 To 480/Pun/2024 Chate Tutorials Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit,Tds Circle, Chate House, Plot No.4, Nashik Near N-2 Cricket Stadium, Cidco, Aurangabad – 431 003 Maharashtra Tan : Nskco1565E Appellant Respondent

section 201(1A) after filing the TDS returns is bad as well. 4) That as per the provisions of sec 201(1) of the Act also a Deductor cannot be treated as an assessee in default and TDS return cannot be treated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E. a. It is submitted that, the filer

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD. AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

SHRI BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS, CPC TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD. ,AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

CHATE TUTORIALS PVT. LTD. ,AURANGABAD vs. LD. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC-TDS

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

SHREE BHASKARACHARYA PRATISHTHAN,CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GHAZIABAD

In the result, both the bunch of appeals filed by the\nrespective assessee's in ITA Nos

TDS return cannot be\ntreated as defective due to non-payment of late fees U/s 234E.\na. It is submitted that, the filer is treated as an assessee in\ndefault for non-payment of SA tax and interest along with return\nU/s 139(1). Moreover, the income tax return is also treated as\ndefective U/s 139(9). On the contrary

M/S. SHARADA PAPER COMPANY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1547/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/S.Sharada Paper Company, The Income Tax Officer, 436/8, Narayan Peth, Vs Ward-11(4), Pune. Maharashtra – 411030. Pan: Aaffs 1470 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune For The Assessment Year 2007-08 Dated 18.07.2019 Arising Out Of Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.03.2013. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Withdrawal Of Claim For The Carry Forward Of Loss For A.Y. 2003-04, A.Y. 2004-05, A.Y.2005-06 & A.Y.2006- 07 Without Verifying The Facts. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal -8) Has Erred In Confirming The Rectification Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 154 & Thereby Withdrawing Loss Allowed In The Assessment Made Under Section 143(3) Of Income Taxact,1961 Without Appreciating The Fact That This Is Not Mistake Apparent From Records & Hence Cannot Be Rectified Under 154 Of The Act.

section 139(1) of the Act. We have gone through the copies of the return of income filed by assessee in the paper book for A.Y. 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The return of income for A.Y. 2003-04 (page 54 of the paper book) was filed on 17.10.2003, which is a fact admitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

TDS certificates / 15G forms for verification. The assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences under Rule 46A before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The invocation of 6 CO No.43/PUN/2025 provisions of section 115BBE of the Act was also challenged before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee