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

Section 5 Padma Parakh Vs. ITO (TDS) ITA Nos. 560, 561 & 562/RPR/2025 234E, Section 271H and the aforesaid proviso to 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

TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the “fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E

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

TDS statement and issuance of intimation under section 200A in respect thereof, an adjustment could also be made in respect of the “fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E

PINKY SACHDEV,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.52/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16 V. Pinky Sachdev, Ito (Tds), ‘Nitya’, Plot No.25, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Krishna Sakha Society, Rohini Puram, Raipur-492 001 [Pan: Atsps 8079 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By Shri Nikhilesh Begani, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.09.2023

TDS on its purchase. To examine this issue, Learned AO issued a show- cause notice under Section 201 of the Act to the assessee on 25.03.2022 requesting the assessee to show-cause as to why not she should be deemed to be an assessee in default in respect of non- deduction of tax at source in respect of the property

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos. 184 to 191/RPR/2022 assessee appellant required fresh investigation of facts, the same, thus, not being a “mistake apparent from record” fell beyond the scope and ken of Section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) on the basis of his aforesaid observations dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee. For the sake of clarity

JAIMEET SAWAIRA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 175/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2019-20

TDS), Raipur dated 08/02/2021. 2 ITA 175/RPR/2023 Grounds appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are as under: GROUND NO. I That the Order passed under section 201 r.ws. 234E

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

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 considered the provisions of Act, case laws, grounds of appeal and statement

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

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 considered the provisions of Act, case laws, grounds of appeal and statement

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

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 considered the provisions of Act, case laws, grounds of appeal and statement

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

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 considered the provisions of Act, case laws, grounds of appeal and statement

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

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 considered the provisions of Act, case laws, grounds of appeal and statement