WALVEKAR BROTHERS & CO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194C, section 194D, section 194E, section 195 and section 196A, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income” 20. From the language of section 205, it is clear that once the tax is deducted at source, the same cannot be levied once again

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(3),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH & B.T. PATIL & SONS & N.V.KHAROTE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

194C of the Act. (e) The assessee had failed to deduct tax from the payments made to its members the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would apply. 6. the A.O further held that the assessee had claimed TDS of Rs. 59,58,556/- in its return of income on total contract receipts, however no income

AJAY ENGINEERING & AGRI EQUIPMENT COMPANY,AURANGABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

TDS u/s. 194C : 6.1. The ld. Pr.CIT observed in the show cause notice that the AO ought to have made disallowance of Transport Expenses of Rs.37,19,441/- u/s.40(a)(ia) for failure on the part of the assessee to deduct tax at source u/s.194C of the Act. The assessee submitted before the ld. Pr.CIT that the case was covered

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, NAGPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Gd Padmahshali

section 263 revision actions only. 7. We now advert to the Assessing Officer identical reopening reasons forming subject matter of challenge in this additional substantive ground. Page No. 34 in assessee’s paper book contains the reopening reasons for AY 2006-07 as under : “On verification of the records for A.Y. 2006-07 in case of the above mentioned assessee

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the Assessing Officer reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the Assessing Officer reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve

MRS. PUSHPA G. BANSAL,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 1,,

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

194C r.w.s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance qua the payment(s) of transport charges without deducting TDS thereupon. 3. The assessee at this stage invited our attention to her identical additional substantive ground(s) raised in as many three petitions that once the Assessing Officer reopening reasons recorded in these three assessment years are not sustainable, these reassessments deserve

M/S. ORGANICA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK -1, NASHIK

In the result, Assessee’s appeal

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashali

TDS on the balance amount of payments and nothing is on record to show that Ld. AO had made verification as per the provisions of section 194C of the Act. Accordingly the assessment order dated 11.09.2017 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and the same was set aside

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PVT.LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

194C is as under: “(5) No deduction shall be made from the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of, or to, the contractor, if such sum does not exceed thirty thousand rupees : Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts of such sums credited or paid or likely

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PVT.LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

194C is as under: “(5) No deduction shall be made from the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of, or to, the contractor, if such sum does not exceed thirty thousand rupees : Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts of such sums credited or paid or likely

PUDHARI PUBLICATIONS PVT.LTD.,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1394 To 1396/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Pudhari Publications Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. 2318 C-Ward, Bhausingji Road, Pudhari Bhawan Karveer, Kolhapur- 416002. Pan : Aadcp2453Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None (Written Submission) Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: The Above Captioned Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Kolkata Dated 02.05.2024 For The Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1394/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2015-16 For Adjudication.

194C is as under: “(5) No deduction shall be made from the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of, or to, the contractor, if such sum does not exceed thirty thousand rupees : Provided that where the aggregate of the amounts of such sums credited or paid or likely

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MHASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

DHIRAJ GIRIDHAR MASKE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, LATUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS statement payment to contractors (section 194C) transaction with Shri Sharda amounting to Rs.1,15,71,228/-. (ii) TCS statement sale of motor vehicle exceeding Rs.10 lakhs (section 206C) transaction with Sagar motors amounting to Rs.1,23,05,000/- 3. Since the assessee has not filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS has been deducted on these receipts u/s. 194C of the Act. This submission of the appellant has not been disputed by the AO in his remand report. Moreover, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO has not given any basis of estimating the income @ 25%. Considering these facts, the contention of the appellant that the profit

PRASAD RAMCHANDRA PATIL,URAN, PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS has been deducted on these receipts u/s. 194C of the Act. This submission of the appellant has not been disputed by the AO in his remand report. Moreover, it is seen from the assessment order that the AO has not given any basis of estimating the income @ 25%. Considering these facts, the contention of the appellant that the profit