Search: TDS | BharatTax

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-KATNI, KATNI vs. M/S. GAJRAJ MINING PVT. L:TD., SINGRAULI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Shravan Kumar Gotru, CIT(DR)

73,334/- b) Swatch Bharat Cess Rs. 1,06,68,102/- c) Kisan Kalyan Cess Rs. 42,52,993/- d) Tax deducted at source Rs.1,88,16,240/- 9. The appellant has also stated that opening balance in TDS payable account as on 01.04.2016 is at Rs. 1,18,42,573/ - and closing balance at Rs. 1

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER , CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE ,JABALPUR vs. ITO (TDS)-2, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

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

ITA 4/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Shidharth Seth.Adv. ARFor Respondent: Shri.RajeshKumarGupta.Sr.DR

Section 154Section 156Section 190Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 200A(1)(c)Section 203ASection 204Section 234ESection 285

1. Olaria Little Flower Kuries P Ltd Vs. Union of India, [2022] 134 taxmann.com 111. 2. Ellora Property Services Pvt Ltd., Vs. TDS CPC, ITA No. 1742- 1760/Mum/2020. 3. Medical Superintendent Rural Hospital, DOBI BK Vs. DCIT, CPC, [2018] 100 taxmann.com 78. 4. Permanent Magnets Ltd. Vs. DCIT – CPC (TDS), ITA No. 6436 to 6442/Mum/2018. Additional DIGP Vs. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. SHRI INDRABHAN SINGH RATHORE, NARSINGHPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 234/JAB/2018[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur08 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri. Aok Bhura, DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

TDS. It was further submitted that it was not known that whether the said petty contractors were maintaining any books of accounts or showing all their receipts in their books of accounts and it was not within the control of the assessee to ensure that. Therefore, the assessee had requested the learned Assessing Officer to issue summons under section

MOHAN LAL BHIKHULAL,BETUL GANJ, BETUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BETUL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 73/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194Section 40

73 & 78/JAB/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohan Lal Bhikhulal v. Income Tax Officer Ward Betul Ganj, Betul (MP). Aayakar Bhawan, Betual (MP). PAN:AABFM6172C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv Respondent by: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 06 01 2025 Date of pronouncement: 07 01 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT

MOHAN LAL BHIKHULAL BETULGANJ ,BETUL,BETUAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BETUL WARD, BATUL

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 78/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 194Section 40

73 & 78/JAB/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mohan Lal Bhikhulal v. Income Tax Officer Ward Betul Ganj, Betul (MP). Aayakar Bhawan, Betual (MP). PAN:AABFM6172C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv Respondent by: Shri Bharat Sheogankar, Sr. CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 06 01 2025 Date of pronouncement: 07 01 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT

SWETA GOENKA,JABALPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMR TAX-1, JABALPUR, JABALPUR

In the result, the assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

ITA 44/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon‟Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri U.B. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263

73,938/- remains to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and deserves to be added back to the total assessed income of the assessee for the year under consideration. 9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and legal findings, as the Assessing Officer has failed to make enquiries as well as apply