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 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 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

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

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

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

5); and\nc. Dinesh T Tailor [2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nc. Dinesh T Tailor\n[2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nc. Dinesh T Tailor [2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nDinesh T Tailor\nc.\n[2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nc. Dinesh T Tailor — [2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nDinesh T Tailor\nc.\n[2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5\nThe assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nDinesh T Tailor\nc.\n[2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nc. Dinesh T Tailor – [2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] – (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

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

5); and\nc. Dinesh T Tailor — [2010-TIOL-311-HC-MUM-IT] — (Para 11\nand 12 on Page 21 and 22).\n1.5 The assessee Appellant, additionally submitted that the distinction\nbetween tax, interest and fees canalso be made out from the fact that the\ncharging section for tax, i.e. section 4 also mentions only income tax, TDS/TCS.\nFor interest

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the Ld. PCIT (Central), Pune, relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SHRINIWAS ENGINEERING AUTO,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2013-14 The Asstt. Cit Cir. 6, Pune. Appellant Vs. M/S. Shriniwas Engineering Auto C-10 Abhimanshree Society, Baner Road, Pune-411008 Pan : Aajcs 8944F Respondent Appellant By : Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By : Shri R.G. Gawli Date Of Hearing : 09-05-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-05-2022 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

TDS. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order held that similar issue came up for consideration before him in the immediately preceding assessment year ie.. 2014- 15 and for the reasons mentioned in his order dated 3-7-2017 directed the A.O not to reduce

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 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] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

TDS Actual Area land Rs. 3(G)(2) ction Compensation amount well paid 3534 14,31,27 1,43,127 47803 16,22,200/- 1,62,220 14,59,980 sq.m 0 4.3 Thus, the actual amount of Rs.14,59,980/- was paid to the assessee on 30/08/2010. The assessee filed an appeal against the compensation. The Additional Divisional Commissioner