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

131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also received Rs. 23,401/- under section 194C

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

131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also received Rs. 23,401/- under section 194C

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

131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also received Rs. 23,401/- under section 194C

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

131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also received Rs. 23,401/- under section 194C

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

131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration. As per ITS data the assessee had also received Rs. 23,401/- under section 194C

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

131 or Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of proceedings all the duly signed account statement, bank accounts, ITR and interest account were duly furnished and properly verified by Ld AO. There has not been any single amount of cash being deposited into the accounts of cash creditors. The money has come from

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs do not qualify as State Government

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Year 2012-13. The Revenue contends that the CIT(A) erred in holding that payments made to Van Suraksha and Prabandh Samitis (VFPMCs) were not contract payments under Section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argues that the VFPMCs do not qualify as State Government

M/S. NOKHA AGRO SERVICES,,BIKANER vs. PR. CIT, , BIKANER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S Nokha Agro Services, 18 Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income Km Stone, Nh-15, Tax, Sriganganagar Road, Bikaner. Bikaner. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaffn 8164 R

TDS has been deducted on interest paid to unsecured loans. ii) The A.O. has appraised the claim of interest paid on term loan, O.D. limit and unsecured loans after satisfying himself that these loans are for the purpose of warehousing activities of the assessee business. iii) While framing the assessment order learned A.O. has reviewed the reason for investment

SUNITA AGARWAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Sh. Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sunita Agarwal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, 98, Industrial Area, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Aeopa 9467 R

1. The Ld. PCIT was wrong in law as well as in facts in setting aside the order of the assessing officer without considering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The ld. PCIT has not been able to establish the pre-requisite conditions for invoking the revisional provision.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee