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 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

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

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

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

KALYAN SAHAI GURJAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(A), JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 195/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12 Kalyan Sahai Gurjar S/o Surja Ram Gurjar Bhojera, Virat Nagar, Jaipur cuke Vs. CIT(A) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALMPG 1989 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Prajapat (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@

Exemption Rs. 15,292/- and deduction under section 80C Rs. 73,312/-. TDS was already deducted 2,439/- on my taxable

MILLENIUM BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands partly allowed with no 6

TDS), Kota is only the interest paid to Cooperative Societies that has been exempted by the Statute from the liability

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS payment, and excess MAT credit.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 for all three issues raised. For Section 14A, the Tribunal found no error in the NFAC's decision not to disallow expenses as no exempt

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL WELFARE,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS cannot be a predominant criterion rather Ld. CIT(Exemption) failed to appreciate that recipient of services in furtherance of object