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

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 :

4 denied of involvement of contractor in his department. Considering these facts, and CBDT circular no 502 dated 27.01.1988, I am of the opinion that payments made to these Van Samitis are not contract payments and provisions of section 194C thus do not apply. The AO is directed to delete the tax demanded u/s 201 of the Act. Grounds raised

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 :

4 denied of involvement of contractor in his department. Considering these facts, and CBDT circular no 502 dated 27.01.1988, I am of the opinion that payments made to these Van Samitis are not contract payments and provisions of section 194C thus do not apply. The AO is directed to delete the tax demanded u/s 201 of the Act. Grounds raised

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 :

4 denied of involvement of contractor in his department. Considering these facts, and CBDT circular no 502 dated 27.01.1988, I am of the opinion that payments made to these Van Samitis are not contract payments and provisions of section 194C thus do not apply. The AO is directed to delete the tax demanded u/s 201 of the Act. Grounds raised

JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

TDS deducted is only from the deposit in the Nationalized bank on which deduction u/s 80P is not allowable. 2.7 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mis Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd Vs ACIT, 84 taxmann. 114 (SC), 2017 held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) would be admissible to those co-operative societies which

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.

4 is also not relevant in view of specific language and announcement in notification No. 3408(E) dated 8.11.2016, wherein SBN were ceased to be legal tender for any type of transaction except certain exceptions mentioned therein. The assessee is trying to construe the meaning of legal tender as per its convenience which favours it. Hence, this plea also falls

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)

TDS u/s 194C as the purchase of packaging material as per the specification of the assessee is covered within the meaning of works contract as per section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The appellant craves the right to amend alter or add to any of the grounds of appeal given above.” 4. The assessee has filed cross

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)

4. S. 263 of the Act Explanation not invoked: Interestingly, the ld. CIT did not invoke Explanation to S.263 which is normally interpreted / taken support by the invoking of S.263 in absence of which, the ld. CIT could not have at all complained of lack of inquiry or not making proper inquiries. Otherwise also he has not suggested what further