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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

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)

Section 275, no reply has been given on merit. The appellant was asked to furnish a copy of State Government order which has been mentioned in the order of Income Tax Officer, TDS. However, no such detail has been furnished by the appellant despite several opportunities. Therefore, it is inferred that the appellant has nothing to state on merit

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SMT. SHEHNAJ BEGUM,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOTA

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

Bench: Framing Huge Demand Of Rs. 1,64,186/- For Non-Collection Of Tcs U/S 201(1) & Rs. 1,10,759/- For Interest On Non-Collection Of Tcs U/S 201(1A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Sustaining The Same.

186/- for non-collection of TCS u/s 201(1) and Rs. 1,10,759/- for interest on non-collection of TCS u/s 201(1A) and the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the same. ITA 946/JP/2017_ 2 Shehnaj Begum Vs ITO(TDS) 3. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case

COLUMBUS OVERSEAS LLP,16, RAJA PARK, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DAS ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

186 iii. Taksheel Solutions Limited Vs. ACIT - ITA No.1768/Hyd/2012 iv. M/s Trinity Infra Venture Ltd Vs. ACIT ITA N90.403/Hyd/2021 v. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd Vs. CIT (1992)196 ITR 406 (Bombay) vi. Resolve Salvage & Fine Ind P. Ltd Vs. DCIT ITA No. 841/Mum/2019 order dt. 18/4/2022 In the above cases, it has been held that payment of interest on TDS

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

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

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

186 of enclosed for reference Paper-book Retention and Closure of FCNR Deposits Retention Period: The FCNR deposits were retained with the aforementioned bank until 13.02.2009. On closure, the bank credited the following amounts to the OD account: o GBP Rs. 1,20,92,383/- from FNCR No. 10483321000022 o USD Rs. 67,67,856/- from FNCR No. 10483321000015 Banker

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 145 need not have been invoked and the addition for purchases as bogus was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of selling parties could not be denied. It upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress and hence deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made

YOGENDRA KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS. During the course of hearing, the only argument raised by the ld. AR is that though the amendment in section 40(a) for disallowance of 30% of the expenditure was made with effect from assessment year 2015-16, the amendment being curative in nature, the same should be applied retrospectively including the impugned assessment year. It was further submitted

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

186 (Delhi) has observed as under (relevant extracts produced): • The action of the income-tax authority of denying immunity from penalty initiated under section 270A for misreporting of income was not only erroneous but also arbitrary and bereft of any reason as it was not specified in the penalty notice whether it is the case of 'under-reporting' or 'misreporting