GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 154 of the Act envisages amendment in intimation issued U/s 200A(1) of the Act and therefore, there is no error or illegality in the order of the A.O. passed U/s 154 of the Act and levying the fee for default in furnishing the TDS

DRAWMET WIRES PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, both the assessee of the appeals are allowed

Section 154 of the I.T. Act on 27.02.2013 wherein the assessee claimed that no dividend has been paid in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee claimed that dividend of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- has been paid in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12.The AO did not accept this contention

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

Section 37 of the IT Act. Firstly, The DRs contentions are that the documentary proof wgich was submitted by the AR in his paper book at page number 8 relates to the expenses on account of Rental Expenses paid. Secondly, the Ld DR is questioning the Ledger Account 5 profession promotion Expenses, where the asessee has TDS commission for (refer

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 143(1) of the Act. The assessee preferred an application for 154 being the application for rectification of mistake stating that mismatch/discrepancy, in Form 26AS and Income tax return of appellant, was the result of wrong reporting of PAN by Urban Improvement Trust (UIT), Kota, while filing it’s TDS

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

154 (Kolkata Trib.) Issue:-There were four issues to verify (i) Interest Expenses (ii) Income from real Estate Business (iii) Sales Turnover Mismatch, and (iv) other expenses claimed in the P&L account Order passed by A.O:- AOadded unsecured loans of Rs. 8000000.00 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny

M/S S. BHANDARI & CO., C.A.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 154, it was realized that even though the directions have been given to allow the credit towards TDS, however

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

TDS not deducted on Rs. 11,33,39,800/- (Rs.255623509-Rs.139283709) under the provisions of Act, 1961. This amount of Interest payment was required to be disallowed and hence, added to the declared total income for the A.Y. under consideration. However, the AO/NaFAC didn't consider the same while passing the assessment order on 19.04.2021 further rectified u/s 154

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal held that the assessee having filed the statutory form, viz., Form 27C, the technical breach was liable to be condoned by following the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. A.N. Arunachalam [1994] 208 ITR 481/75 Taxman 529 (Mad.). Therefore, we do not find any scope to entertain the said

MANGLAM VARDHMAN DEVELOPERS LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

sections on the above tax liability.’’ 2.1 As per the facts of the present case, the assessee is an LLP and deduction was claimed on the interest payment on TDS and also the assessee had not deducted TDS on brokerage in advertisement and marketing expenses. The scrutiny assessment was completed without any disallowance. Later, the AO issued a 154

RAJASTHAN ADVANCE JOINT CARE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS amounting to Rs. 1,39,001/- and self assessment tax payment of Rs. 500/- and, therefore, claimed refund as the returned income as well as the assessed income was Nil. The AO did not allow the credit of such sums while passing the assessment order. Therefore, assessee moved an application under section 154

ROOP CHAND NAHAR,JAIPUR vs. CIT(APPEAL), NFAC, DELHI

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

154 against invoking of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) making disallowance/additions of Rs. 3,06,692/- and Rs. 4,29,062/- for alleged non deduction of TDS

CURRENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BASANT VIHAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR , BABA SIDHNATH BAHWAN

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal While Challenging Order Dated 22.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Act"), Whereby Its Appeal Challenging Intimation, U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Dated 24.12.2020, Has Been Dismissed. 2

TDS of Rs. 14,30,745/- for the assessment year 2019- 20 was denied to the assessee, without affording any opportunity to the appellant of being heard. 6. When provisions of section 154

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

154 taxmann.com 432 (Gujarat)[03-05-2023] Held: Where assessee received unsecured loans and produced confirmation of lenders and other relevant documents such as copy of PAN, ledger account, bank statement and audited books so as to establish creditworthiness, genuineness and identities of lenders in transactions, impugned addition made under section 68 on account of said unsecured loan

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 154 of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-02, Kota. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Bhim Singh vs. DCIT “1. That the Ld. AO grossly erred on law and facts in rejecting the application u/s 154 for rectification of apparent mistake in order u/s 154 dated 30.06.2020” That

SH. AMIT MANTRI,A-3-A, ANAJ MANDI, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Sections 198 and 199 of the Act, the credit of such advance tax in the form of TDS is bound to be allowed to the assessee for this year. The A.O. has denied the claim of credit of TDS on technical ground of limitation, however, when nothing was to be performed on the part of the assessee to claim such