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

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

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

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

149 (SC) 5 ITA 45/Jodh/2019 ACIT Vs Smt. Alpana Gupta.  CIT Vs HDFC Bank Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 0505 (Bom)(HC)  CIT Vs UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 8 (Guj) (HC) (Magz.)  CIT Vs Suzlon Energy Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 630 (Guj)(HC)  CIT Vs Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom(HC). 6.2 Considering the totality