MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

1) and 201(1A) of the Act. ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17): 3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A

MAHARAJA GANGA MAHAL,BIKANER vs. ITO, TD,, BIKANER

In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawal

1) and 201(1A) of the Act. ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17): 3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT APPEAL, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for “assessee not in default”. 4. Brief facts of the case involve, that the appellant was covered by a survey u/s 133A(2A) of I.T. Act on 17.10.2019 so as to verify whether the appellant as a deductor is deducting tax at source (TDS

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST FOREST BHILWARA,BHILWARA vs. CIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for “assessee not in default”. 4. Brief facts of the case involve, that the appellant was covered by a survey u/s 133A(2A) of I.T. Act on 17.10.2019 so as to verify whether the appellant as a deductor is deducting tax at source (TDS

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

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

1. That the ld. CIT (Appeal) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the rectification application made by appellant u/s 154, ignoring the apparent mistakes that had occurred in the appellate order, including incorrect application of law that goes against canons of well established fundamentals of partnership law. 2. That the ld. CIT (Appeal), Udaipur has erred

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS,, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORET,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

1)/201(1A)/ The order passed by ld. AO was bad in law and bad on facts. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of ld. AO that there was liability of deduction of tax at source on reimbursement to various EDC/VFMC under the instruction of Government of Rajasthan. There was no contract liable to TDS

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

section 194A is not applicable. Similarly, the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmadabad Tribunal in the case of Omkara Impex and Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO (2018) 53 CCH 0201 (Ahd.) (Trib.) has held that discounting charges are outside the 11 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta. purview of interest expenses, therefore, in our considered view, the question of making