MINING ENGINEER, MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT (STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT),ALWAR vs. CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Section 206C(6) of the Act on royalty, dead rent etc. 8.2 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee, brief facts of the case are that the AO on account of short collection of TCS has raised total demand of Rs. 9,48,555/- (being TCS of Rs. 7,46,894/- alongwith interest u/s 206C

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

68 SOT 370 (cuttack). (c) Furthermore the presumption of AO that the penalty is automatic and has to be levied in routine and mechanic manner is not correct. It is also to be noted that there is no allegation that there is delay in depositing the TDS. The only reason for levying the penalty is the consequential filing

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

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

68 SOT 370 (cuttack). (c) Furthermore the presumption of AO that the penalty is automatic and has to be levied in routine and mechanic manner is not correct. It is also to be noted that there is no allegation that there is delay in depositing the TDS. The only reason for levying the penalty is the consequential filing

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

68 ITD 1 (PAT.) 1. Penalty u/s 272A(2)(c) Penalty u/s 272A(2)(k) • 2. In the case mentioned above two In the case of Assessee the tax was major issues were addressed: deducted and deposited with the Government well before show • Firstly the assessee had not cause notice. deducted TDS u.s 194 C • The Statement of Return under

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

206C- Hence, applying the reasonable period of limitation as four years within which the AO could pass order under ss. 206(6) / 206 * (7) , the impugned order passed by the AO on 30th March 2016 is beyond the said reasonable period of limitation and consequently, invalid being barred by limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order passed under ss. 206(6)/206

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

6. It was noted that in the ITR, the assessee had disclosed income from sale of scrap at Rs 49,00,000/-, whereas, in clause 34(a) of form 3CD, the amount of scrap sale, on which TCS has been made u/s 206C, has been reported at Rs. 1,29,20,987/-. As such there is a prima facie case

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

206C of the Act. However, assessee shown sale of scrap of Rs. 2,02,58,204/- only in its profit and loss account of ITR. As such there is an under disclosure of sales of scrap by Rs. 33,39,,666/- which should have been added to the total income. She further noted from the ITR and details submitted