HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

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

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

HARDEEP SINGH,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS)J, JAMSHEDPUR

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

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

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

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

M/S VIKAS SAMITIES,JAMSHEDPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, RANCHI

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

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT TDS CPC , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

PRAMOD KUMAR MANPURIA ,RANCHI vs. DCIT CPC TDS , GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.50 To 54/Ran/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-3-26Q) Assessment Year: 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-2-26Q) Assessment Year: 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q) M/S Pramod Kumar Manpuria Vs. Dcit, Cpc(Tds), C/O Modern Funishers Ghaziabad, Up Sujata Chow, Main Road, Ranchi-834001 C/O L.K.Saraf & Co. Chartered 2Nd Accountants, Floor, Chauhan Mansion, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi-834001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Acnpm 3796 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Saket Modi, Fca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi, All Dated 31.10.2017 For The A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-2-26Q), A.Y. 2013- 2014(Q-3-26Q), A.Y. 2013-2014(Q-4-26Q), A.Y. 2014-2015(Q- 2-26Q) & A.Y. 2014-2015(Q-1-26Q), Respectively. 2. The Common Grievance Of The Assessee In All The Appeals Is That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Assessee'S Appeal In Respect Of Levy Of Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act.

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean that

INDICO MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.324/Ran/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014) (Financial Year 2012-2013) Indico Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur M-25(P) & 26(P) Ivth Phase, Adityapur Industrial Area, Chamaria, Jamshedpur C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aabci 4002 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, Dated 30.07.2018 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In This Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In The Appeal Under Consideration On Account Of Late Filing Fee U/S.234E Of The Act. Thereafter

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would not be interpreted to mean

RISHIRAJ HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO(TDS), JAMSHEDPUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargआयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.104, 206 & 207/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Rishiraj Homes Private Limited Vs. Ito(Tds), Jamshedpur Contractors Area, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, C/O: Ca Jagdish Khandelwal, 402&403, A.J.Tower, Q. Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aaccr 7328 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By :Shri Jagdish Khandelwal, Ca(Ar) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K.Mondal, Acit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/05/2019 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jamshedpur, All Dated 05.11.2018 For The Assessment Years 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. 2. The Sole Issue Involved In All The Thee Appeals Of The Assessee Is That The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ao Levying Late Fee U/S.234E Of The Act For Delay In Filing Quarterly Statement. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Tds Return In Form No.24Q Financial Year 2012-2013, 2013-2014 & 2014-2015 Relating To Assessment Year 2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2015-2016, Respectively. Thereafter A Demand Was Raised In All The Three Appeals Under 2

27. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, the impugned notices under Section 200A of the Act for computation and 6 ITA No.104. 206&207/Ran/2019 intimation for payment of fee under Section 234E as they relate to for the period of the tax deducted prior to 1.6.2015 are set aside. It is clarified that the present judgment would

SANJAY CHAWLA,CHAIBASA vs. PR. CIT, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysanjay Chawla, Pr.C.I.T., Sentola, Chaibasa-833201 (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Vs. Pan No. Acmpc 6808 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

section 263 has been invoked for the following reasons:- "Perusal of records reveals that no analysis of quantitative details has been done by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Sanjay Chawla Vs PCIT Even no inquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer as to why there was a loss at the Gross Profit Level.” 3. That

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

27) Please furnish the detail documentary evidence of deduction claimed under chapter VIA. (28) Please furnish the details of exempt income earned and expenses incurred for earning same. Also furnish the detail documentary evidence of LTCG claimed. Also furnish the computation of STCG & LTCG, if any. (29) Please furnish the evidence of TDS done on interest paid in lieu

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

TDS was not deducted the company has added back the entire expenses which is evident from Tax Audit report in Form 3CD (clause 27(a)). The details were available in the schedules to the Audit Report. It is also not correct to say that any and every expense for sales promotion would be of such nature as to require deduction

HEC LTD,FINANCE &ACCOUNTS,RANCHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

TDS was not deducted the company has added back the entire expenses which is evident from Tax Audit report in Form 3CD (clause 27(a)). The details were available in the schedules to the Audit Report. It is also not correct to say that any and every expense for sales promotion would be of such nature as to require deduction

DCIT CIRCLE-1, RANCHI vs. M/S HEC LTD, RANCHI

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, J.M. & Dr.A.L.Saini, A.M.)

TDS was not deducted the company has added back the entire expenses which is evident from Tax Audit report in Form 3CD (clause 27(a)). The details were available in the schedules to the Audit Report. It is also not correct to say that any and every expense for sales promotion would be of such nature as to require deduction

ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY,DHANBAD vs. PR. CIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

TDS, wherever applicable, was also deducted and deposited. In respect of source of advance he has submitted that the aforesaid amount of ₹ 10,42,27,450/- received in lieu of allotment of flats has been brought forward from the books of preceeding year and does not pertains to the year under consideration and further submitted that during the aforesaid assessment

DEVPRABHA CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD.,,DHANBAD vs. PCIT, DHANBAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Devprabha Construction Private Ltd., P.C.I.T., Dev Villa, Behind Radha Swamy Arcade, Dhanbad, Vs. Saraidhela, Dhanbad-828127. Aayakar Bhawan, Luby Pan No. Aaecb 2652 A Circular Road, Dhanbad-826001 (Jharkhand) Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

27 I 329 ITR 289 / 185 Taxman 356 (Delhi)(High Court) - Where two views were possible on the issue, and one view is taken by the assessing officer while passing order under section 143(3) of the Act, which was also a plausible view, merely because the view benefited the assessee, the action of the assessing officer cannot be held