SH. VIKESH KUMAR,HARYANA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, Ground No. 1

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

TDS amounting to Rs. 42,504/-. In view of these facts and considering the provisions as contained in section 249

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

section 249(2). The ld. A/R placing reliance on various decisions of Hon’ble High Courts and the decision of 5 Zila Parisad vs. ITO TDS

SH. JAGTAR SINGH,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause" Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on such payment. The ld. A/R has further contended that the order passed by the AO dated 29th March, 2016 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 201(3) of the IT Act as existed at the relevant point of time. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

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

TDS), Kanpur v. Canara Bank [2018] 95 taxmann.com 81 (SC): This Court having already laid down in Dalco Engg. (P.) Ltd. case (supra) that establishment of various financial corporations under State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 is establishment of a Corporation by an Act or under an Act. We are of the view that the above ratio fully covers the present

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

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

249(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land & Acquisition vs. Mst Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) held as under: ‘’The Legislature has conferred power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to enable the courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing

SHREE GANPATI TRADERS,KISHANGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has not filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. I am of the considered 5 M/s. Shree Ganpati Traders, Kishangarh. view that the appellant

SHRI DEEPAK ENTERPRISES,KISHANGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has not filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is 5 M/s. Deepak Enterprises, Kishangarh. an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. I am of the considered view that the appellant did not have

M/S JITENDRA SIZING FACTORY,KISHANGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has not M/s. Jitendra Sizing Factory, Kishangarh. filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. I am of the considered view that the appellant did not have

M/S JITENDRA SIZING FACTORY,KISHANGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has not M/s. Jitendra Sizing Factory, Kishangarh. filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. I am of the considered view that the appellant did not have

M/S JITENDRA SIZING FACTORY,KISHANGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.”

Section 249(2), the appeal has to be presented within 30 days of date of service of notice of demand. The appellant has not M/s. Jitendra Sizing Factory, Kishangarh. filed the appeal within the period specified u/s 249(2). There is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. I am of the considered view that the appellant did not have

STAR DEVELOPERS,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS while passing an intimation order u/s. 143(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961.’’ 2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 11 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay with following prayer. ‘’1. That assessee-firm filed

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

TDS under section 194A(3)(iii)(f) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the HUDCO. The ld. A/R, therefore, submitted that the action of the ld. CIT (A) is totally unjustified in holding the assessee as assessee in default for non deduction of tax at source on the interest payment made to HUDCO. He further submitted that it is neither

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

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

section 201(1) shall be furnished to the Directors General of Income Tax (System) or to be person authorized by him. In the present case, the certificate of accountant furnished by the assessee has not been furnished in accordance with Rule 3 DCIT vs. RDB Cars Pvt. Ltd. 31ACB as amended w.e.f. 19-02-2013. Hence, this certificate cannot come

SMT. SANYA SURENDRA MEHTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No. 1523/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2013-14 Smt. Sanya Surendra Mehta 301, Swadeshi Apartment, D-37-38 Shanti Path, Patrakar Colony, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur बनाम The ITO Ward - 6(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABMPM 0118 L अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Cho

Section 249 of the Act. 5. Since the appellant has not filed return of incomeas well as not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by it, present appeal is not liable to be admitted. The appeal is infurcutous and, therefore, is dismissed. 6. The appeal is dismissed.’’ 2.4 During the course of hearing

BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

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

TDS as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-submission of challan. 7. Rs.1,67,855/-. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in disallowing Entry Tax as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-deposit of Entry tax. 8. The appellant prays your Honor’s indulgence

BIKANER DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

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

TDS as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-submission of challan. 7. Rs.1,67,855/-. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in disallowing Entry Tax as per provisions of Section 43B on account of non-deposit of Entry tax. 8. The appellant prays your Honor’s indulgence

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271C of IT Act was initiated in order dated 29.03.2014 under sec. 143(3) of IT Act for which reason appears that ld. AO also appreciated the bona-fide belief of assessee that no tax is deductible on payment to foreign Supplier, having no permanent establishment in India. 7 Isys Softech Private Limited vs. ITO High Courts and finally