MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATION HEADQUARTER BSF,BIKANER vs. JCIT (TDS), RANGE, JODHPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 234E of the Act, however, the question before us in these appeal that has been raised is whether the impugned intimation given by the AO, TDS against all the appellants u/s. 200A of the Act are so far as they are for the period prior to 01.06.2015 can be said as without any authority under the law. We note

HEMENDRA GANGAWAT ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-TDS, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS Prop:M/sMetroTrading Aayakar Bhawan, Room Company, No. 01A, Ground Floor, 52, Krishi upaj Mandi, Near Sub-City Centre, Udaipur -313001 Reti Stand, Savina, Rajasthan. Udaipur – 313001 Rajasthan. PAN/GIR No. : ABYPG8819Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR Date of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR

HEMENDRA GANGAWAT ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-TDS, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS Prop:M/sMetroTrading Aayakar Bhawan, Room Company, No. 01A, Ground Floor, 52, Krishi upaj Mandi, Near Sub-City Centre, Udaipur -313001 Reti Stand, Savina, Rajasthan. Udaipur – 313001 Rajasthan. PAN/GIR No. : ABYPG8819Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT - DR Date of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR

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

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

198,793,676.98 9. As can be seen from the above tables, almost all sundry creditors were of earlier years, therefore, there is no justification to treat the same as unexplained credit entry of the year under consideration as per the ratio laid down in various judicial precedents. In the case of CIT v. Usha Stud Agricultural Farms