SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

3) of Section 206C which is to be delivered or caused to be delivered for tax deducted at source or tax collected at source, as the case may be, on or after the 1st day of July, 2012." 12. On a perusal of sub-section (1) of section 234E, it is clear that a fee is sought to be levied

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

In the result, the penalty levied in 3 cases is hereby directed to be deleted subject to verification of payment of taxes along with fee and interest

TDS, Jaipur Central Government, he had delivered or cause to be delivered the statement referred to in sub-section (3) of section 200 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 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) u/s 206C(6)/206C(7) within time line with the limitation period of seven years as defined under section 201(3

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) u/s 206C(6)/206C(7) within time line with the limitation period of seven years as defined under section 201(3

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) u/s 206C(6)/206C(7) within time line with the limitation period of seven years as defined under section 201(3

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)

3 above, ITO(TDS) be directed not to levy tax u/s 206C(1) and interest u/s 206C(7). It is submitted that first proviso to section

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)

3 above, ITO(TDS) be directed not to levy tax u/s 206C(1) and interest u/s 206C(7). It is submitted that first proviso to section

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)

3 above, ITO(TDS) be directed not to levy tax u/s 206C(1) and interest u/s 206C(7). It is submitted that first proviso to section

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 206C(3) of the Act. Therefore, the A.O. is having no discretion to levy or not to levy the penalty but it is mandatory once there is a default in furnishing the TDS

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

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

Section 206C are not 3 Shri Pramod Kumar Jain vs. ITO ,TDS applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied

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

TDS statement could not be submitted/delivered within the prescribed period as per the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act read with section 206C

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

TDS statement could not be submitted/delivered within the prescribed period as per the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act read with section 206C

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

TDS statement could not be submitted/delivered within the prescribed period as per the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act read with section 206C

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

TDS statement could not be submitted/delivered within the prescribed period as per the provisions of section 200(3) of the Act read with section 206C

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.

TDS) 3. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in holding that the assessee is liable for collection of TCS in terms of section 206C

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS, Alwar passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & 206C of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.06.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in the assessee’s appeal for different years are almost identical and are almost common, except the difference in figure of demand raised and disputed. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS, Alwar passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & 206C of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.06.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in the assessee’s appeal for different years are almost identical and are almost common, except the difference in figure of demand raised and disputed. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS, Alwar passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A) & 206C of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 28.06.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in the assessee’s appeal for different years are almost identical and are almost common, except the difference in figure of demand raised and disputed. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with