INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, VARANASI vs. PROMINENT DATAMATICS MARKETING PVT. LTD., , VARANASI

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

250(2) o f the1961 Act, as well there is a breach of Rule 46A of the 1962 Rules, and hence even on this count the appellate order passed by Id. CIT(A),Varanasi is not sustainable. Thus, we are setting aside and quashing the appellate order passed by Id. CIT(A), Varanasi as non-est, and we hold that

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS),, AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

4. Because the learned AO has not brought on record the material evidence to prove the default of TDS on the part of the appellant. 5. Because the order u/s 201/201(1A) dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned AO is erroneous in law, without evidence and contrary to the facts on record. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

PRATAP DIAGNOSTIC CENTER,AZAMGARH vs. ITO (TDS), AZAMGARH

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

4. Because the learned AO has not brought on record the material evidence to prove the default of TDS on the part of the appellant. 5. Because the order u/s 201/201(1A) dated 31.03.2017 passed by the learned AO is erroneous in law, without evidence and contrary to the facts on record. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

MANISH JAISWAL,GORAKHPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, (TDS), ALLAHABAD

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2016-17 Mr. Manish Jaiswal, Addl.Cit (Tds), Prop. New Manish Medical V. Allahabad-211001, U.P. Agencies Pashupati Market, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan: Akdpj7675D (Appellant) (Respondent)

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee- assessee or the liability for penalty under Section 271C of the Income- tax Act." Thus, it is clear that the appellant