RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

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

TDS. Further, it is not a case that the show-cause has been issued under section 201(1) and the final assessment order has been passed under section 201(1)/201(IA) of the Act. Rather, the AO has inadvertently made a mention of 201(1)/201(IA) in addition to section 206C(6)/206C

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin of the order passed U/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the Act prior to the amendment vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/4/2010 whereby subsection (3) was inserted to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin of the order passed U/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the Act prior to the amendment vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/4/2010 whereby subsection (3) was inserted to Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

TDS-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin of the order passed U/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the Act prior to the amendment vide Finance Act, 2009 w.e.f. 01/4/2010 whereby subsection (3) was inserted to Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

3, under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case, the ld. Assessing Officer (AO) has grossly erred in passing\nthe assessment order dated 20.11.2018 under sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961, during the pendency of SLP No. 16734/2023 before the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court and the subsisting stay order dated 28.08.2023. The stay order\nexplicitly

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

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

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

3)(iii)(f). Therefore, no tax is required to be deducted at source at the time of paying interest to INDIRA GANDHI PANCHAYATI RAJ SANSTHAN. C.RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD The AO created a demand of Rs.90,946/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non deduction of TDS

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 :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201

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 :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201

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 :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

TDS provisions, however is not deemed to be assessee in default by virtue of first proviso to section 201(1), then too (as in first proviso) for the purpose of this sub clause, it shall be deemed that assesse has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return by resident payee. 14 Shiv

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

3 4 5 Authorized Form Type Mode of A.Y To be used A.O furnishing Form exclusively for defaults under section Field 26A Paper Up to & 201(1A) Assessing including 2016- and/or Officer 17 40(a)(ia) (TDS

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS is governed by the provisions of section 201(1A)(ii) of the 1961 Act read with Rule 119A(b) of the Income-tax Rules,1962. The governing section, 3

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

3) of section 271H. The AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has failed to file the statement even after depositing the tax. This statement of the authorities below appears to be contrary to the fact because the AO has also passed the order dated 11.11.2013 under section 201(1) and 201

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

3) of section 271H. The AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has failed to file the statement even after depositing the tax. This statement of the authorities below appears to be contrary to the fact because the AO has also passed the order dated 11.11.2013 under section 201(1) and 201

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

3) of section 271H. The AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has failed to file the statement even after depositing the tax. This statement of the authorities below appears to be contrary to the fact because the AO has also passed the order dated 11.11.2013 under section 201(1) and 201

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

3) of section 271H. The AO as well as the ld. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has failed to file the statement even after depositing the tax. This statement of the authorities below appears to be contrary to the fact because the AO has also passed the order dated 11.11.2013 under section 201(1) and 201

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

3 above, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no demand can be raised under section 201(1) of the Act since taxes would have been paid by the recipient parties and such an action of the learned TDS

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee.” Reliance in this regard could also be placed on the following decisions: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs DCIT (TDS) (Special Bench) 2009- TIOL