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 the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by Addl. CIT (TDS), Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Isys Softech Private Limited vs. ITO “1

SH. SWAPNIL AGARWAL,1, AGARWAL DHARAM KANTA, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER vs. ITO(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

1% but failed to do so. Therefore, the case was transferred to the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Range, Udaipur. Based on these set of facts a show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271C

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1)(c)--Computation—Proceedings for levying the penalty under s. 271C were initiated vide order dt. 19th March, 2009 which fell in the financial year 2008-09 ending on 31st March, 2009 and the action for imposition of penalty was initiated on 24th Dec., 2009 when the reference was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT (TDS)--Accordingly

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 under section 194C on such amount and in reference to it the learned Assessing Officer has issued a demand notice u/s 156 of the Act. In compliance to the above-mentioned notice, appellant has paid the demand of Rs. 1,790 (tax amount of Rs.1,492 and interest of Rs. 298) on 9 August 2019 vide challan

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 under section 194C on such amount and in reference to it the learned Assessing Officer has issued a demand notice u/s 156 of the Act. In compliance to the above-mentioned notice, appellant has paid the demand of Rs. 1,790 (tax amount of Rs.1,492 and interest of Rs. 298) on 9 August 2019 vide challan

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)

271C in the assessee case for failure to deduct tax at source. Submission we may submit our party-wise reply as under:- A.DIRECTOR SARVA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN NECULEUS CELL The AO created a demand of Rs.2,57,508/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non deduction of TDS

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 :

1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee – assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment

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 :

1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee – assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment

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 :

1) of the IT Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the officer-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee – assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer section 201(1A) of the Act till the date of payment

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

1), which is also introduced by the Finance Act 2012and effective1st July 2012, and which provides 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 on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE RUHS BRANCH,JAIPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) JAIPUR, 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)

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in not allowing relief to the assessee against penalty imposed under section 271C amounting to Rs. 2,67,763/- being equivalent to the amount of tax. “ The learned CIT(A)-NFAC passed an ex-parte order due to the non- appearance of/on behalf

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS)—Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010—Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010— Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSADY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

section Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS of 194C of the Act and raised the demand accordingly. The ld. AO also levied the penalty for this defaults u/s. 271C equivalent to the amount of demand. 7. Aggrieved from both the order of TDS and related penalty the assessee has preferred the appeal for before