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. 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

JAIPUR CITY TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

delay application filed before the Tribunal in order for him to take appropriate action under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and it was therefore requested to consider the assessee’s condonation application. 3. In its condonation application, the assessee company has submitted as under: “1. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) passed his order on 09.07.2018 which was served upon the assessee

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE RUHS BRANCH,JAIPUR vs. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 271C amounting to Rs. 2,67,763/- being equivalent to the amount of tax. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC has erred in not allowing relief against penalty order passed by AO imposing the penalty amounting to Rs. 2 Oriental Bank of Commerce RUHS Branch 2,67,763/- without waiting

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSADY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDSINCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order for condonation

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

271C of 1.T: Act 5.3. The Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS noted that no reply was filed on merit. It was only replied that online appeal has been filed on 28.08.2019 against order dated 27.07.2018 of Income Tax Officer, TDS. The Jt Commissioner of Income Tax noted that 27.07.2018 the appeal was delayed and the order 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 :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably

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 :

condone the delay. Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer 3. Admitting the appeal of the revenue moving further on merits, the ld. DR submitted that the matter pertaining to Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer in ITA no. 358/JP/2023 may be taken as a lead case for discussions as the issues involved in the lead case are common and inextricably