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

TDS statements from 01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in accordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of section 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and therefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can be equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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

TDS statements from 01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in accordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of section 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and therefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can be equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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

TDS statements from 01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in accordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of section 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and therefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can be equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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

TDS statements from 01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in accordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of section 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and therefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can be equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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

TDS statements from 01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in accordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of section 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and therefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can be equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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

TDS statements from 01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in accordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of section 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and therefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can be equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

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 statements from\n01.06.2015 onwards has been confirmed and found to be in\naccordance with law. He also submitted that in sub-section (2) of\nsection 200A there is reference to sub-section (1) of the Act and\ntherefore what is provided in sub-section (1) of section 200A can\nbe equally carried out by the Centralised Processing Cell which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

TDS was deducted shows that the relationship between the assessee, purportedly the developer and the government is that of contractor and contractee. ii) The assessee company has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principals, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principals who is the actual owner/developer. iii) The assessee's profits

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

TDS was deducted shows that the relationship between the assessee, purportedly the developer and the government is that of contractor and contractee. ii) The assessee company has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principals, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principals who is the actual owner/developer. iii) The assessee's profits

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

TDS was deducted shows that the relationship between the assessee, purportedly the developer and the government is that of contractor and contractee. ii) The assessee company has acted as a contractor only on a specific contract allotted by its principals, cost of which has been reimbursed from the principals who is the actual owner/developer. iii) The assessee's profits