FINANCE DEPARTMENT ZILHA PARISHAD,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS statements as required by the Act. Recourse to section 273B should have been resorted to if the assessee was able

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,,LATUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,TDS RANGE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

TDS statements as required by the Act. Recourse to section 273B should have been resorted to if the assessee was able

M/S. STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,,NANDED vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS RANGE ,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2974/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. State Bank Of Vs. Joint Cit, Tds Range, Hyderabad, Nashik. At Shrinagar, Nanded- 431602. Tan : Nskso8336G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad Dated 23.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.2,11,100/- U/S 272(A)2(K) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Penalty May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Appellant Prays For Just & Equitable Relief. 3. Appellant Prays To Add, Alter, Amend And/Or Withdraw The Ground/S During The Proceedings.”

273B provide that no penalty shall be levied in case an assessee establishes that he was prevented from the compliance of the provisions of the said section for reasonable and sufficient cause. Therefore, in the light of these provisions, the question that is required to be determined by us is whether the explanation offered by the appellant bank before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS @1% u/s 1941A would also be required to be deducted for extra amenities such as club membership fees, car parking fee, electricity and water facility. maintenance fee or any other charges of similar nature paid at the time of purchase of property which are incidental to transfer of the immovable property. From the above it is clear that there

SAVALESHWAR DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANDHARPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Savaleshwar Dudh Utpadak Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Pandharpur Bamani, Taluka Sangola, Dist. Solapur – 413304 Pan : Aamts2990K Appellant Respondent

273B r. w. s. 271B seeking explanation for failure to comply provisions of section 44AB. The assessee did not submit any written submission. The AO considered the material available on record and observed that that there was contractor and contract relationship between assessee and govt. of Maharashtra and TDS