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 this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 29.08.2018 in ITA. No. 316/JP/2018 in para 6 as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that 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-3 Vs M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin this Tribunal in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2009-10 vide order dated 29.08.2018 in ITA. No. 316/JP/2018 in para 6 as under: "6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that Section 206C

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)

6 & 7 of his order held that assessee sold scrap to various parties but has not collected tax at source. Further, he has not obtained prescribed Form No.27C from the buyer as same were not found during spot verification nor submitted such form during spot verification. He accordingly raised demand u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act r.w.s. 206C

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)

6 & 7 of his order held that assessee sold scrap to various parties but has not collected tax at source. Further, he has not obtained prescribed Form No.27C from the buyer as same were not found during spot verification nor submitted such form during spot verification. He accordingly raised demand u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act r.w.s. 206C

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)

6 & 7 of his order held that assessee sold scrap to various parties but has not collected tax at source. Further, he has not obtained prescribed Form No.27C from the buyer as same were not found during spot verification nor submitted such form during spot verification. He accordingly raised demand u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Act r.w.s. 206C

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

206C (3) of the Act, which is as under:- (3) Any person collecting any amount under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1C) 29[***] shall pay within the prescribed30 time the amount so collected to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs : Provided that the person collecting tax on or after the 1st day of April

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

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

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 inter alia

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) 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal on the merits of the case wherein it was held that the sale of scrap to a dealer falls in the ambit of Section 206C

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

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

TDS as provided in clause (b) of Section 206C of the Act. For ready reference we quote clause (b) of explanation to Section 206C as under:- “"scrap" means waste and scrap from the manufacture or mechanical working of materials which is definitely not usable as such because of breakage, cutting up, wear and other reasons;” For the purpose of Section

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 5. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld DR that the ld CIT(A) has already reduced the penalty from Rs 20,000 to Rs 10,000 for each of the quarters, being the minimum penalty leviable under section 271H

MINING ENGINEER, MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT (STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT),ALWAR vs. CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

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

TDS, Alwar 8.1 The solitary ground of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the amount of Rs. 9,48,560/- (including interest at Rs. 2,01,661/-) on account of short collection of TCS as per Section 206C(6

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.

section 194C (1) of the IT Act, 1961 and under such facts and circumstances the assessee material. 5. However, videfive separate orders passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) and 206C (6)/206 C (7) of the IT Act all dated 28/06/2019 for each assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 respectively, the ld AO fixed the liability

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

section 194C (1) of the IT Act, 1961 and under such facts and circumstances the assessee material. 5. However, videfive separate orders passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) and 206C (6)/206 C (7) of the IT Act all dated 28/06/2019 for each assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 respectively, the ld AO fixed the liability

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.

section 194C (1) of the IT Act, 1961 and under such facts and circumstances the assessee material. 5. However, videfive separate orders passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) and 206C (6)/206 C (7) of the IT Act all dated 28/06/2019 for each assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 respectively, the ld AO fixed the liability

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.

section 194C (1) of the IT Act, 1961 and under such facts and circumstances the assessee material. 5. However, videfive separate orders passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) and 206C (6)/206 C (7) of the IT Act all dated 28/06/2019 for each assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 respectively, the ld AO fixed the liability

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.

section 194C (1) of the IT Act, 1961 and under such facts and circumstances the assessee material. 5. However, videfive separate orders passed u/s 201(1)/ 201(1A) and 206C (6)/206 C (7) of the IT Act all dated 28/06/2019 for each assessment year i.e. AY 2015-16 to 2019-20 respectively, the ld AO fixed the liability

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

6. Ground No.2 relate to raising demand of Rs.1,492 for non- deduction of tax at source u/s.194C and Rs.298 charging of interest u/s.201(1A). The appellant deductor failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C on the payment of Rs.74,593/- made to Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. The AO treated the appellant deductor as assessee in default for non-deduction

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

6. Ground No.2 relate to raising demand of Rs.1,492 for non- deduction of tax at source u/s.194C and Rs.298 charging of interest u/s.201(1A). The appellant deductor failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C on the payment of Rs.74,593/- made to Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. The AO treated the appellant deductor as assessee in default for non-deduction