INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 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 IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 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 IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 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 IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income suffered TDS and, therefore, the assessee should have\ndeclared for the income in the original return itself, is far from

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income suffered TDS and, therefore, the assessee should have\ndeclared for the income in the original return itself, is far from

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

addition of Rs. 5,13,22,611/- made on account of undisclosed interest earned on FDRs and not appreciating the fact that as the assessee has claimed credit of TDS deducted on the said interest as per section 199 of the IT Act, such income

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income suffered TDS and, therefore, the assessee should have\ndeclared for the income in the original return itself, is far from

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income suffered TDS and, therefore, the assessee should have\ndeclared for the income in the original return itself, is far from

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional income suffered TDS and, therefore, the assessee should have\ndeclared for the income in the original return itself, is far from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAKESH GOEL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS AO ascertained the\namount paid as penalty or otherwise and accordingly added to the total income\nfor the year.\nIn appeal proceedings, appellant has not filed any explanation with regard to\nnature of amount paid It is proved that appellant has accepted the fact and has no\nexplanation in this regard. Therefore, addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

additional income Difference between income originally declared and total income admitted in revised return represented advance received by assessee in said assessment year from various cinema producers towards work to be done by her - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer opined that assessee filed revised returns only after revenue issued notice under section 143 and, therefore, it should be construed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

additional income - Difference between income originally declared and total income admitted in revised return represented advance received by assessee in said assessment year from various cinema producers towards work to be done by her - In course of assessment, Assessing Officer opined that assessee filed revised returns only after revenue issued notice under section 143 and, therefore, it should be construed

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

additional evidence\nsubmitted by the assessee. The ld. DR contended that no relief should be granted to\nthe assessee on this account.\n64. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on\nrecord. The first issue to be addressed is whether the additional evidence submitted\nby the assessee in the form of ledger accounts of different companies

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

additional evidence is\naccepted, and the case is set aside to the file of the ld. AO for re-examination of the\ndocuments on record and verification of the factual position.\nGROUND NO. 9\n65. In relation to Ground No. 9, the assessee has challenged the lump-sum\naddition of Rs. 58,17,320 made under various heads of income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

additional income\nDifference between income originally declared and total income admitted in\nrevised return represented advance received by assessee in said assessment year\nfrom various cinema producers towards work to be done by her - In course of\nassessment, Assessing Officer opined that assessee filed revised returns only after\nrevenue issued notice under section 143 and, therefore, it should be construed

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

TDS made on the Income Tax\nPortal. Finally, the assessment has been completed after making addition of Rs.\n40,00,000/- u/s 69 of the IT Act, 1961 on account

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

additional evidence being the PAN number of the payee then in that case let this details be verified by Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS the ld. AO and based on the these details final liability of TDS and related penalty thereof be decided. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. In this

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

additional evidence being the PAN number of the payee then in that case let this details be verified by Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS the ld. AO and based on the these details final liability of TDS and related penalty thereof be decided. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. In this

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

additional evidence being the PAN number of the payee then in that case let this details be verified by Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS the ld. AO and based on the these details final liability of TDS and related penalty thereof be decided. 10. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. In this