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

3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2019. In course of survey, it was found that

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

3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2019. In course of survey, it was found that

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

3. Briefly, the facts are, as stated by the Assessing Officer, the assessee is engaged in hotel business and provides facility for rooms, restaurant and bar. To verify the TDS compliance, a survey under section 133A (2A) of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2019. In course of survey, it was found that

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

TDS deducted under section 194Q,194H,194A and other sections. 2. ITA No. 45/Jodh/2025 Assessment Year 2023-24 That the Id. Dy. Director of Income-tax (CPC) has erred in completing the assessment at Rs. 7,47.980/- against declared income of Rs. 2,09,320/-. 3

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

3) CIT\n(4) CIT(A)\n(5) Departmental Representative\n(6) Guard File\nBy Oder\nAssistant Registrar,\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,\nJodhpur Bench,\nJodhpur.\n", "summary": {"facts": "The assessee filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) confirming an addition of Rs. 9,07,093/- for non-deduction of TDS. The assessee submitted a written application to withdraw

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

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.”

194A of the Income Tax Act, by the ITO (TDS), Udaipur. 2 Khojema Ali Bohra 2. The assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi without going into the entirety of the facts and also in contradiction of the binding precedents

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