Search: TDS | BharatTax

5 results for “TDS”+ Section 54Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Chandigarh50 Delhi11 Ahmedabad6 Jaipur5 Indore5 Bangalore4 Mumbai2 Karnataka2 Kolkata1 Patna1 Pune1 Raipur1 Chennai1 Cuttack1 Hyderabad1 Surat1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)5 Section 54F5 Section 234A4 Section 244A4 Addition to Income4 Section 153C3 Deduction3 Section 542 Section 143(2)2 Section 54B2 Long Term Capital Gains2

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

ITA 414/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 54BSection 54F

TDS credit of Rs. 4,467/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer held that since the original return was not furnished U/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), therefore, revised return is void ab initio. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold immovable property held in joint names located at Banbeerpur, Tehsil- Tijara

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

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

ITA 415/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Roy (DCIT)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 244ASection 54BSection 54F

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

ITA 94/JPR/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-Sr.DR a

Section 144Section 153C

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Validity of) - Assessment year 2007- 08 - In appellate proceedings, Tribunal recorded a finding that satisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C was recorded by Assessing officer on 02-02-2015 - Tribunal thus opined that Assessing Officer could not have initiated and passed

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bhargav, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(2)Section 250

TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope of issue under limited scrutiny. The CBDT has issued instruction no. 15/2015 dated 29/12/2015 (CLPB 12 to 14), 05/2016 dated 14/07/2016 (CLPB 14 to 15) and dated 30/11/2017 (CLPB-49) on limited scrutiny matters. The crux of the instructions is summarized as under- i. The questionnaire

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manik (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54Section 54(2)Section 54F

TDS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED @ 1% U/S 194IA TOTAL 10822354/- 962681/- 11785035/- 1.6 Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer ignored the genuine difficulties of the assessee and, held that assessee has failed in depositing the unused amount by 31/07/2016 in `Capital Gains Account Scheme’ 13 Indira Giri vs. ITO (CGAS) and considered the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs only as eligible