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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSADY.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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

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)

TDS “1. Erred in facts on holding that the assessee was not provided opportunity to furnish the details of PANs during the course of proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A). 2. The CIT(A) further erred in law in not considering the fact that income of the deductee is totally exempt

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

exempted and this rule was being followed since many years. TDS Exemption of LFC was in a nature of thumb

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

exemption. ITA No. 145 & 146/JP/17 and S.A. No.04 & 05/JP/2017 State Bank of India, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, TDS, Jaipur • The exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD , SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

TDS u/s 194A of the Income-tax Act. Even after May 2017 HUDCO has clarified that they have paid due income-tax by considering entire interest income received from borrowers and therefore under the provisions of Income-tax Act, the borrowers would not be considered as assessee in default. HUDCO has also applied for an exemption

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

TDS u/s 194A of the Income-tax Act. Even after May 2017 HUDCO has clarified that they have paid due income-tax by considering entire interest income received from borrowers and therefore under the provisions of Income-tax Act, the borrowers would not be considered as assessee in default. HUDCO has also applied for an exemption

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

TDS and also exemption certificate from the deposited the same with the Government. concerned AO for non deduction of TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-2, JAIPUR

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

TDS on the amount of reimbursement of Leave Travel Concession (LTC)/Leave Fare Concession (LFC) given to its employees even in the cases where a foreign destination was included in the itinerary of their journey. Section 10(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly stipulates that exemption

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

exemption from TDS under section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the HUDCO. The ld. A/R, therefore

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

exemption from TDS under section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the HUDCO. The ld. A/R, therefore