M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS under section 194C has been deducted by the parties on Rs. 30,33,776/- and TDS under section 194H

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663- 2674/2015(T-IT) in Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

Section 201 of the Act as well as the fact that the assessee failed to deduct any tax at source u/s 194J. (iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 33,908/- made by AO by disallowing Interest Expenses u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. CIT (A) has not appreciated the fact that there

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

33. In view of the above and respectfully following the judicial reasoning delineated in the above judgments, we find that if the assessee complies with the provisions of section 194C(6), disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 12 ACIT, Bharatpur Vs. M/s Arihant

GEETA STAR HOTELS & RESORTS P LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

33. We further find that in recent judgment dated 26.08.2016, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2663- 2674/2015(T-IT) in Fatheraj Singhvi v. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 has quashed the intimation issued under section 200A of the Act levying the fees for delayed filing the TDS

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA ,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR, TIGER PROJECT SARISKA (LOCAL AUTHORITY) ,SARISKA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

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

TDS not deducted on Rs. 11,33,39,800/- (Rs.255623509-Rs.139283709) under the provisions of Act, 1961. This amount of Interest payment was required to be disallowed and hence, added to the declared total income for the A.Y. under consideration. However, the AO/NaFAC didn't consider the same while passing the assessment order on 19.04.2021 further rectified

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS U/s 194C of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 1,62,33,061/- U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 13. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the provisions of Section