PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 01.04.2015 is permitted to be 8 Padma Parakh Vs. ITO (TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section

PADMA PARAKH, RAJNANDGAON,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, BHILAI, BHILAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.560, 561 & 562/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Padma Parakh Parakh Nursing Home, Lal Bagh, Rajnandgaon-491 441 (C.G.) Pan: Ajqpp8601H

200A of the Act for the TDS for the period prior to 01.04.2015 is permitted to be 8 Padma Parakh Vs. ITO (TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 reopened for claiming refund. The judgment will have prospective effect accordingly. It is further observed that the question of constitutional validity of Section

JANTA INDUSTRIES,BASPAIPARA vs. MS.RANJINI SRIKUMAR, INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.46 & 47/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Janta Industries Durga Talkies Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aaffj9101J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

200A: Processing of statements of tax deducted at source (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source, or a correction statement, has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— 5 Janta Industries Vs. ITO (TDS

JANTA INDUSTRIES,BASPAIPARA vs. MS.RANJINI SRIKUMAR, INCOMETAX OFFICER(TDS), INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.46 & 47/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Janta Industries Durga Talkies Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aaffj9101J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer (Tds) Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru ……""यथ" / Respondent

200A: Processing of statements of tax deducted at source (1) Where a statement of tax deduction at source, or a correction statement, has been made by a person deducting any sum (hereafter referred to in this section as deductor) under section 200, such statement shall be processed in the following manner, namely:— 5 Janta Industries Vs. ITO (TDS

SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED, BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 43/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S. South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495006 Pan: Aadcs2066E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

TDS credit. 13. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground raised for initiating penalty proceedings on account of disallowance relating to amortization of leased land compensation expenses. 14. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the ground raised for initiating penalty proceedings on account

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

8TH BATALIAN INDIA RESERVE CAF,RAJNANDGAON vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS return. From form number 35, it is clear that appeal has been filed against order u/s. 154 of the Act, and not against the original order u/s. 200A. 5.1.2 have gone through the rectification order passed by the CPC u/s.154 r.w.s. 200A of the Act, wherein the sum of Rs. 31,000/- has been determined and the grounds

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect of Form 26Q for Q4 of F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, wherein late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.37,609/- and interest late payment payable of Rs.6,129/- was levied. Appellant is in appeal against the order of LJAO. I have

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect of Form 26Q for Q4 of F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, wherein late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.37,609/- and interest late payment payable of Rs.6,129/- was levied. Appellant is in appeal against the order of LJAO. I have

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect of Form 26Q for Q4 of F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, wherein late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.37,609/- and interest late payment payable of Rs.6,129/- was levied. Appellant is in appeal against the order of LJAO. I have

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect of Form 26Q for Q4 of F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, wherein late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.37,609/- and interest late payment payable of Rs.6,129/- was levied. Appellant is in appeal against the order of LJAO. I have

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect of Form 26Q for Q4 of F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, wherein late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.37,609/- and interest late payment payable of Rs.6,129/- was levied. Appellant is in appeal against the order of LJAO. I have

NIKITA KINGRANI, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS WARD, BHILAI, DURG

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

200A of the Income Tax Act dated 23/03/2014 by Learned ACIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad (herein referred as LJAO) in respect of Form 26Q for Q4 of F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13, wherein late filing fee u/s 234E of Rs.37,609/- and interest late payment payable of Rs.6,129/- was levied. Appellant is in appeal against the order of LJAO. I have