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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS proportionate to the turnover not reflected in trading

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS proportionate to the turnover not reflected in trading

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 dated31.10.2017. Hence the matter was referred to Joint Commissioner for imposition of penalty under section 271E of the IT Act, 1961. The JCIT issued show cause notice under section 271E of the IT Act, 1961 dated 08.02.2018 to the assessee to show cause as to why penalty under section 271E

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS proportionate to the turnover not reflected in trading

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') that TDS proportionate to the turnover not reflected in trading

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. RAVI INFRABUILD PROJECTS LIMITED, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS credit under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised sole ground which

MOHAN LAL TALESARA,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-1(1), UDAIPUR

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

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.316/Jodh/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

TDS return and withdrawing the credit, the ld. AO has acted beyond jurisdiction to execute the withdrawal of credit and reduced the refund u/s 154. We find that rectification is only related to intimation U/s 143(1) of the Act read with section

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal has been filed The application has to be made in form No. 68 within 30 days from the end of the month in which the order has been received by the Assessee. After providing opportunity

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

143(2) along with notice under Section 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

PREETI SINGHVI L/H SHRI AJAY SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(3), thereafter on the same facts, it was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 which was finalized, again notice u/s 148 is issued on the same facts and without any new material and finalized the reassessment which is for adjudication before this Hon’ble Tribunal. Now, this Hon’ble Tribunal is to decide the how prolong this

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

section 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 20,53,00,090/- making the additions/disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) by giving relief, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved by the order

RAJTECH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,PRATAPGARH. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 27.12.2016. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1. THE LD CIT APPEALS HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID TO BANKING FINANCE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND OF NON TDS

MOHAN LAL MENARIA ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 19.12.2016. The grounds of appeal are as under : “1. That learned Income Tax officer as well as learned CIT (Appeal) has wrongly sustain addition on A/C of U/S 40(a)(la) for RS.1,06,913/- where as from no.26A was submitted. TDS

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS by disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR, due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

BALDEV DASS LAKHOTIA,SRI BIJAYNAGAR vs. ITO, SURATGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS by disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR, due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

JAGDISH RAI GOYAL,HANUMANGARH vs. ITO, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS by disallowing the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR, due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

DARSHAN LAL KATHPAL HUF,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. AO, CPC (RNJ-W-(570((92) / ITO, WARD-1,, SRIGANGANAGAR

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

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

143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS to Rs. 6,957/- out of Rs. 40,088/-. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted

BHIKHAM CHAND MOHTA HUF,HANUMANGARH JUNCTION vs. ITO WARD - 1, HANUMANGARH, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessee are allowed in the manner discussed as above

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

143(1) of the Act, has accepted Returned income but it has restricted the claim of TDS to Rs. 58,911/- out of Rs. 2,72,207/- in respect with assessment year 2022-23. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on the ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were shown