DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view of binding decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the cases of Shri Bhanwar Lal Choudhary vs ACIT Circle – Sikar on 15-2-2018, Santosh Kumar Kedia vs ITO (ITA No.1905/Kol/2014 Kolkata), Mitra Guhar Builders Co. vs DCIT

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 :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

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 :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

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 :

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 20.03.2019. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 2. At the outset of the hearing, the Bench observed that there is a delay of 30 days in filing of the present appeal by the revenue. In support revenue filed a petition for condonation

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

section 201(1) and 201(1A) before the ld. CIT (A). Since there was a delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT (A), the appeals of the assessee were dismissed as not maintainable in limine by the ld. CIT (A). The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has explained the delay in filing

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned in as much as the main thrust of sub-section 1A of section 206C is to make a Manoj Kumar Jain, kota. declaration as prescribed, upon which, the liability to collect tax at source under sub- section (1) would not apply. When there was no dispute about such a declaration being filed in a prescribed format and there

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned in as much as the main thrust of sub-section 1A of section 206C is to make a Manoj Kumar Jain, kota. declaration as prescribed, upon which, the liability to collect tax at source under sub- section (1) would not apply. When there was no dispute about such a declaration being filed in a prescribed format and there

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

condoned in as much as the main thrust of sub-section 1A of section 206C is to make a Manoj Kumar Jain, kota. declaration as prescribed, upon which, the liability to collect tax at source under sub- section (1) would not apply. When there was no dispute about such a declaration being filed in a prescribed format and there

HARIRAM HOSPITAL,ALWAR vs. PCIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1535/JPR/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Hariram Hospital Bye Pass Road Hariram Hospital Bhiwadi, Alwar – 310 019 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The Pr.CIT (Central) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAFFH 5746 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Himanshu Goyal, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Da

delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is now adjudicated on merit. 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that a survey action 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 28-08-2018 at business premises of the assessee firm. The assessee filed its original return of income

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The action of ld.CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes only

201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). Following grounds have been taken by the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The action of ld.CIT (A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ADDL.CIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO TDS-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellate Hearing.”

section 201(1) & 201(1A) & 271C of the Income Tax Act [ here in after as Act ] , by ACIT (TDS), Jaipur & ITO, TDS, Circle- 01, Jaipur. Bank of India vs. ITO 2. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are almost identical or interrelated on grounds and on facts. Therefore, these appeals were heard together with the agreement of both

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT FACLESS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT/ITO, (TDS)- Jaipur [ for short AO ]. Since the issue raised in both the appeals were identical were heard together and are disposed of by a common order by taking the fact of the case in ITA no. 68/JP/2025 as lead case. 2. At the outset

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT/ITO, (TDS)- Jaipur [ for short AO ]. Since the issue raised in both the appeals were identical were heard together and are disposed of by a common order by taking the fact of the case in ITA no. 68/JP/2025 as lead case. 2. At the outset