AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS credit and corresponding income declaration in the assessment year under consideration in view of clause 3(ii) of rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules. The appellant is also directed to furnish all supporting documentary evidence before the A.O." The Ld. AR for the assesee, has reiterated the submission made before the 1st appellate authority by stating that the assessee

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS credit and corresponding income declaration in the assessment year under consideration in view of clause 3(ii) of rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules. The appellant is also directed to furnish all supporting documentary evidence before the A.O." 4. The Ld. AR for the assesee, has reiterated the submission made before the 1st appellate authority by stating that

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

TDS credit and corresponding income declaration in the assessment year under consideration in view of clause 3(ii) of rule 37BA of the I.T. Rules. The appellant is also directed to furnish all supporting documentary evidence before the A.O." 4. The Ld. AR for the assesee, has reiterated the submission made before the 1st appellate authority by stating that

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

TDS deducted u/s.194A, (v) Rs.11281311 being cash deposited in banks accounts of assessee. 3.1 Assessee made its reply vide letter dated 21.11.2017 which is reproduced in the impugned order. After considering the submissions of 4 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 the assessee, learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making the additions as stated

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

business, Ready Mix Concrete Manufacturing and allied activities. The assessee filed return of income on 23.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 29,02,210/-. The return of income was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.12.2014. Thereafter the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment, the AO found from

ACIT, CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JODHPUR vs. M/S. VIDYA BHAWAN SOCIETY, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradacit, Vs M/S. Vidya Bhawan Circle (Exemption), Society, Mohan Singh, Jodhpur Mehta Marg, Fatehpur, Udaipur (Raj.) (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari, Ca Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 23/03/2023 Date Of 24/03/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kul Bharat, J.M.: The Present Appeal Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Udaipur Dated 27.06.2019. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

business and profession. The addition made on this account is directed to be deleted. The ground nos. 1 & 2 raised by the appellant regarding these issues are allowed.” 10. The Revenue has not rebutted the finding of Ld.CIT(A) that the issue is squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. Therefore

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Final Hearing, If Necessary.”

Income Tax Officer (TDS), Udaipur in invoking provisions of section 206C(6A)/206C(7) of Act on the sales of Maua on the sole basis of Rajasthan State Govt notification dated 27.10.2014. 3. That ld. CIT(A) also erred in holding the assessee in default for sale of Mahua to consumer buyers for non-collection

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Income Tax Return and partial credit of only Rs. 24,621/- has been allowed, as against total TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./ JCIT (A) - 1, Chennai, who dismissed the appeal of the Appellant

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Income Tax Return and partial credit of only Rs. 24,621/- has been allowed, as against total TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl./ JCIT (A) - 1, Chennai, who dismissed the appeal of the Appellant

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6A), r.w.s. 206C(6) 206C(7) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals of the same assessee have common issue and same nature of fact. Accordingly, we have taken all the appeals together, heard together and disposed of together for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 20/Jodh/2022

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6A), r.w.s. 206C(6) 206C(7) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals of the same assessee have common issue and same nature of fact. Accordingly, we have taken all the appeals together, heard together and disposed of together for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 20/Jodh/2022

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

TDS), Jodhpur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6A), r.w.s. 206C(6) 206C(7) of the Act. 2. At the outset, all the appeals of the same assessee have common issue and same nature of fact. Accordingly, we have taken all the appeals together, heard together and disposed of together for the sake of convenience. ITA No. 20/Jodh/2022

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

Appeal of the assesse is allowed in the manner discussed as above

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, HonʼBle & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble

TDS credit is bad in law when the receipts are part of business income and duly reflected in Form 26AS

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

business income of the firm around 0.5% of the gross turnover of Rs. 33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

business income of the firm around 0.5% of the gross turnover of Rs. 33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

business income of the firm around 0.5% of the gross turnover of Rs. 33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

business income of the firm around 0.5% of the gross turnover of Rs. 33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit