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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

section 201. Therefore, we uphold the demand. ITA No. 84/Jodh/2023 (A.Y. 2017-18): 9. We have heard the parties. Facts in this appeal are more or less identical to ITA No. 83/Jodh/2023 except little variation in the sense that in this year, the assessee has made following payments : Amount paid TDS to be Interest Total Nature of default payment Name

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

142(1) dated 03.10.2017 which were served on the assessee. Copy of 3 DCIT vs. U.N. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur- AY: 2013-14 reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 was also supplied to the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer also noted the facts about accounts of the assessee not audited and hence details, filed by the directors

SUSHIL KUMAR MARLECHA,PALI vs. DEPUTY/ASSTT, CIT (CPC-TDS) / ITO, TDS-1,, GHAZIABAD / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

section should be construed strictly and reasonably. The Bombay High Court in the case of Dattatraya Gopal Shette vs. CIT (1984) 41 CTR (Bom) 393 : (1984) 150 ITR 460 (Bom), has also taken the same view. The Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where an application for renewal of registration was not signed by one of the partners

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

142(1) along with questionnaire was issued on 20.09.2016. In compliance thereto, the assessee submitted relevant details/information which were considered. Upon consideration of the detailed information, the AO completed the assessment under 3 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 vide his order dated 31.10.2017 at a total income

C L TRADERS,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

142(1) of the Act issued on 27/12/2017. The assessee failed to submit the return under section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year. The assessee declared total income of Rs.8,70,900/- in relation to turnover of Rs.5,06,91,098/- during the impugned assessment year. The Ld.AO found that during the demonetisation period, the assessee

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

section 271(1)(b) was deleted.” Since, in the present case, there is nothing on record which could suggest that required notices either U/s 143(2) or 142(1) of the Act were ever served upon the assessee, therefore, non-compliance on account of non- receipt of notice by the assessee could not be taken as intentional. Even otherwise

CHHITAR MAL JAIN ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

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

TDS) [2022] 142 taxmann.com 25 (Madras). The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as below: - “28. That apart, there are a slew of decisions of the Income-tax AppellateTribunal, wherein in the context of section

LAXMAN SINGH SOLANKI (FIRM),PALI vs. ITO, , PALI

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

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

TDS is liable to be deducted. Therefore, disallowance of interest paid of Rs.4,46,546/- is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 3 The Ld. AO has erred in disallowing the 100% of expense which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 4 The appellant pray for suitable costs. 3. Briefly

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd. 2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY 2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee was given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. M/S MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred