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

TDS amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

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

TDS amount along with interest under section 201(1A) at Rs.6,040/-. In so far as interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd. is concerned, the 201(1) and 201(1A) at Rs.83,382/-. Thus, in nutshell, the Assessing Officer raised the demand of Rs.89,422/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. Contesting the demand

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.”

1), for clauses (c) to (e), the following clauses shall be substituted with effect from the 1st day of June, 2015, namely:— “(c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount

S SOHAN SINGH JOGINDER SINGH & CO.,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

TDS. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal. The Department did not object to the withdrawal.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 194A", "Section 201(1

KHOJEMA ALI BOHRA,UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

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

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.”

1)/201(1A) read with sections 194A of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (TDS), Udaipur. 2 Khojema Ali Bohra

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

1. THE LD CIT APPEALS HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST PAID TO BANKING FINANCE COMPANIES ON THE GROUND OF NON TDS. 2. THE LD CIT APPEALS IS NOT JUS3.TIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE INTEREST ON IT REFUND THROUGH BOOK ADJUSTMENT WHICH WAS Rajtech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., [A] NEVER INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT CARVES

AHUJA AND SONS,SHOP AT NEW DHAN MANDI vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER APPEAL, KOLKATA

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

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

1. That the Id. Dy. Director of Income tax (CPC) has erred in disallowing the TDS amounting to Rs. 112921.00. That the Id. AO has further erred in allowing the TDS •in proportion to the turnover/receipts in Form 26AS in relation to TDS deducted under section 194Q,194H,194A

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, (TDS)(II),, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradpunjab National Bank, Vs Ito, R.R. Singhvi, Advocate, Tds (Ii), “Rajhans” 1St A Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Jdhpo2161F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

section 12A and 10(23C)(vi). In the instant case, had the TDS been deducted, still the same would have been claimed as refund by the deductee. Thus a lenient view can be taken in favor of the appellant for non deduction of TDS u/s 194A keeping in view the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex court

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)

1. The CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal because assessee was delayed in filing the appeal. The delay was because of medical reasons and medical certificate and affidavit was also submitted but CIT(A) has not considered the appeal submission which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. AO has erred