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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

section Field 26A Paper Up to & 201(1A) Assessing including 2016- and/or Officer 17 40(a)(ia) (TDS)[1] CPC-TDS

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

TDS was unintentional and without any mela-fied intention. Further as per the proviso to sub-section 1 to section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 states that: Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter

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

TDS was unintentional and without any mela-fied intention. Further as per the proviso to sub-section 1 to section 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 states that: Provided that any person, including the principal officer of a company, who fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter

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

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

TDS was not required to be deducted by the assessee. Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 2.3 above, 2.4. Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the fact that the recipient company i.e. HUDCO has issued the certificate under Form 26A as prescribed in 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)

TDS) be directed to confirm this fact from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. or alternatively allow the assessee an opportunity to file Form 26A, i.e. certificate from accountant under 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)

TDS) be directed to confirm this fact from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. or alternatively allow the assessee an opportunity to file Form 26A, i.e. certificate from accountant under 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)

TDS) be directed to confirm this fact from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd. or alternatively allow the assessee an opportunity to file Form 26A, i.e. certificate from accountant under first proviso to section

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 and accordingly no tax was deducted in terms of section 194A. In support of claim, assessee had furnished certificate in form 26A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS u/s 194C on payment made for purchase of packing material and disallowances was made ignoring the facts that some direct purchases were made without contract and for some purchases contract entered by the assessee for supply of goods not for carrying out of any work and such contract does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified

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 139, ii) has taken into account such sum for computing income in such return of income; and 5 DCIT vs. RDB Cars Pvt. Ltd. iii) has paid the tax due on the income declared by him in such return of income, and the person furnishes a certificate to this effect from an accountant in such form

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

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

TDS was not required to be deducted by assessee. Without prejudice to ground of appeal no. 2.3 above, 2.4 Ld. CIT (A) has ignored the fact that the recipient company i.e. HUDCO has issued the certificate under Form 26A as prescribed in section

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 10(23C) of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any default of non-deduction as income of that institution is not taxable in respect of default mentioned. For Serial Nos. 2 & 3, 15G was placed on record though the income paid by the branch exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, deduction of TDS left by the software

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 10(23C) of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any default of non-deduction as income of that institution is not taxable in respect of default mentioned. For Serial Nos. 2 & 3, 15G was placed on record though the income paid by the branch exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, deduction of TDS left by the software

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 10(23C) of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any default of non-deduction as income of that institution is not taxable in respect of default mentioned. For Serial Nos. 2 & 3, 15G was placed on record though the income paid by the branch exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, deduction of TDS left by the software

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 10(23C) of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any default of non-deduction as income of that institution is not taxable in respect of default mentioned. For Serial Nos. 2 & 3, 15G was placed on record though the income paid by the branch exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, deduction of TDS left by the software

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 10(23C) of the Act. Therefore, there cannot be any default of non-deduction as income of that institution is not taxable in respect of default mentioned. For Serial Nos. 2 & 3, 15G was placed on record though the income paid by the branch exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, deduction of TDS left by the software

ELCON DRUGS & FORMULATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

TDS has been deducted from interest of Rs. 3,36,201/- paid to various financial institution. However, form 26A in accordance with section

M/S BARMER LIGMITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

26A for these assessment years by the Assessing Officer, as filed during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, appellant's grounds on the issue of levy of demand u/s. 201(1) are allowed to consider the appellant, that the appellant cannot be deemed as assessee in default, similar to A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. With reference to levy of interest

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

26A for these assessment years by the Assessing Officer, as filed during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, appellant's grounds on the issue of levy of demand u/s. 201(1) are allowed to consider the appellant, that the appellant cannot be deemed as assessee in default, similar to A.Y. 2013-14 to 2017-18. With reference to levy of interest