M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

C.N.AUTOMOBILES,,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

M/S GOOD HEALTH FOOD PVT., LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

SHREE BALAJI STEEL WORKS,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ACIT,

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CENTRALISED PROCESSING CELL-TDS,, GHAZIABAD

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

M/S COMPREHENSIVE NEOMARKETING SYSTEM PVT.,LTD.,,RANCHI vs. ए. सी. आई. टी. सेंट्रलाइज्ड प्रोसेसिंग सेल-टी. डी. एस. , गाजिआबाद

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

6. The counsel for the assessee has submitted a statement of TDS returns (APB, Pge. 5-9) contending that all the TDS returns statements has been filed are in respect of the period prior to the date 01.06.2015 i.e. the date from which clause (c) to sub Section (1) of Section 200A was inserted and incorporating Section 234E

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessee in both the appeals has agitated the levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act along with interest thereupon levied u/s 220(2) of the Act. Since, common issues are involved in all the appeals, hence these have heard together and are being disposed

SRI SITA RAM RAI,DHANBAD vs. ITO TDS WARD, DHANBAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos.13&14/Ran/2022 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Sri Sita Ram Rai……..….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 1, New Karmik Nagar, Ism Saraidhella, Dhanbad, Jharkhand - 826004. [Pan: Afipr2324B] Vs. Ito, Tds Ward-Dhanbad………………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 01, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 28, 2023 Order Per Sanjay Garg: Both The Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 15.03.2022 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In Both The Appeals Has Agitated The Levy Of Late Filing Fees U/S 234E Of The Act Along With Interest Thereupon Levied U/S 220(2) Of The Act. Since, Common Issues Are Involved In All The Appeals, Hence These Have Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. The Appeal In Ita No.13/Ran/2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Taken As Lead Case For The Purpose Of Narration Of Facts. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Deducted Tax At Source (Tds) In Respect Of Certain Payments. As Per The Provisions Of 1

250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The Assessee in both the appeals has agitated the levy of late filing fees u/s 234E of the Act along with interest thereupon levied u/s 220(2) of the Act. Since, common issues are involved in all the appeals, hence these have heard together and are being disposed

RAJENDRA KUMAR SAHI,RANCHI vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.148/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Rajendra Kumar Sahi………….……………............................……….……Appellant Hulhundu, Hatia, Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834003. [Pan: Agkps0098L] Vs. Cit(Appeal), Jharkhand….....…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 15, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 29, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 07.08.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2022–23. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2022–23 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹4,96,520. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny As The Assessee Had Disclosed Comparatively Low Income Against Receipts On Which Tcs Had Been Deducted. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Noted A Possibility That The Assessee Had Shown Low Income In Order To Reduce Taxable Profits. It Was Also Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed Significantly Higher Tds In The Revised Itr. Therefore, The Ao Intended To Verify The Genuineness Of The Additional Tds Claim & Whether The Corresponding Receipts Had Been Offered To Tax. Accordingly, Notices Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Income-Tax Act Were Issued To The Assessee. However, The Assessee Did Not Comply With The Notices. Consequently, The Ao

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for the assessment year 2022–23. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2022–23 declaring a total income of ₹4,96,520. The case was selected for scrutiny as the assessee had disclosed comparatively low income against receipts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANCHI vs. SPICA PROJECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, RANCHI

In the result, all these appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected. 4. It may also be worthwhile to mention here