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

80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus

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

80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus

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

80P.\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that nexus

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

80P.\n\n2.4 This clear disconnect between the reasons recorded and the additions made is fatal to\nthe validity of the reassessment. The law requires that there must be a live link or nexus\nbetween the reasons which formed the foundation of the belief of escapement of income\nand the additions ultimately made in assessment. In the present case, that

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)

80P(2)(d) of the Act and thereby a sum of Rs. 15,91,846/- was disallowed. 6. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the findings of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below:- 10 ITA No. 634 & CO. No. 7/JPR/2023 ACIT vs. Alwar Zila

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 :

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 : 01/11/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 08/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These three appeals are filed

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 :

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 : 01/11/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 08/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These three appeals are filed

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 :

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 : 01/11/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 08/11/2023 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM These three appeals are filed

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)

2 and final finding is contained in Para 6.1 Pg. 9 of the order, The Ld. CIT himself admitted that the assesse has made the TDS on the amount of Rs.1,76,26,934/- and it is only the remaining amount of Rs. 1,43,91,971/- there was no short deduction of tax liable for addition. The finding