JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

Section 273B of the Act, I hold that there was a reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee, therefore, no penalty 7 ITA 1456 & 1457/JP/2018 Jaipur National University Vs Addl.CIT(TDS

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed Section 273B

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

TDS returns in terms of section 273B and the penalty under section 272(A)(K) is hereby deleted. In the result

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 in time and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 273B of the Act the explanation of the assessee

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 in time and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 273B of the Act the explanation of the assessee

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 in time and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 273B of the Act the explanation of the assessee

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 in time and, therefore, as per the provisions of section 273B of the Act the explanation of the assessee

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 :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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 :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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 :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

MAHAVIR PRASAD JIAN,TONK vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench.

TDS return. The delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay was due to reasonable cause. Section 273B of the Act provides

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)

273B (P.B. pages 131 to 142). (3) Hathway C. Net (P) Ltd. Vs. TRO (2018) 192 TTJ (Mumb 'F') 497 : Assessee in default- limitation for passing order under section 201(1) / 201 * (1A) . Show- cause notice having been issued on 23rd September 2003. Order passed u/s. 201(1) / 201 * (1A) on 28th March 2011 was barred by limitation. (P.B. pages

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)

273B provides that no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee for any failure referred to in section 271C if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. Section 194-IA which casts an obligation on the buyer of immovable property to deduct TDS

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 Thus on these facts of the case the assessee prevented with reasonable cause and therefore no penalty u/s 271H r/w section 273B

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause why penalty

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

TDS | 15,65,426 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.40,42,000/-\nRs.37,19,337/-\n\nAfter the order of Hon'ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to\nshow cause why penalty

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)

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

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 2,24,438/-. Thus, The Action Of Ld. Cit (A) Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law & The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS and received from the BSNL, it cannot be held to be a case of concealment or suppression of the contract receipts. Accordingly, the explanation of the assessee falls in the ambit of reasonable and bonafide explanation as per the provisions of section 273B