RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\nBeing aggrieved with the order

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 147 r.w.s.144 vide his order dated 28.03.2022 for the\nyear under consideration. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before the ld. CIT (A), who after considering the contentions of the assessee\nas well as the material available on record, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.\n\nBeing aggrieved with the order

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 :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act are also not applicable on them

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 :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act are also not applicable on them

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 :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act are also not applicable on them

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

section 80P(2)(c)(ii) in place of 80P(2)(a)(iii) is incorrect and that the error may kindly be rectified in your records. This reply of the assessee not convincing the ld. AO because the activities being carried out by the assessee. The provision of Sec. 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act, on which the assessee places

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)

section 194C. Hence, assessee is not required to deduct TDS from payment made to PHL in connection with the manufacturing contract. CIT Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2015) 122 DTR 178 (AP) (HC) Fabrication of bus bodies on the chassises supplied by assessee involved sale and not works contract, hence TDS u/s 194C was not attracted. Once a finished

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS for the reason that the same were below the threshold limit. 5.3.B As regards Rs. 1,04,776 the CIT in Para 6.4 is wrong to say that evidence was not filed. However, the query letter, reply, ledger a/c and challan (PB 69TO 74) proved full application of mind by AO. 5.4 SOP by CBDT followed