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

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/-\nclaimed by the Appellant.\nBeing aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant

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

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 of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1

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 of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1

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:-

143(3) of the Act was framed vide order dated 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) while framing the assessment noticed that the assessee had made investment in shares of TISCO Ltd. amounting to INR 37,350/-. The AO treated it to be violation of the provision of section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. He therefore, treated the surplus

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

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

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1

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

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1

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

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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons

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

143(2) was not expired and therefore, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assessment is not sustainable and thus, the ground no. 1 is dismissed. 9.1 As regards the ground no. 2.1, the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 6,77,848/- made on account of commission payment to various persons