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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

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

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

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

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

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

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

226. Section 40 starts with non obstante clause and refers to only section 30 to 38. The deduction of these expenses is under section 28 only where the income is to be taken. Application of section 40 will be only to expenses covered u/s 30 to 38. Based on that submission the ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete

KAVITA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

226 Rs. 30,00,000/- Union Bank UIT, Udaipur of India Rs. 62,71,680/- Referring to the above table, the ld. AR of the assessee explained that after law become applicable, the payment is below 50 lakh and therefore, the assessee cannot be imposed the applicability of provisions of section 194IA of the Act for which the payment made

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal did not propose to go into the other grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. Also refer a recent decision of Honble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of District Magistrate

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal did not propose to go into the other grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. Also refer a recent decision of Honble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of District Magistrate

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act is invalid being barred by limitation. Hence the same is quashed. Since we have quashed the impugned order, therefore, Tribunal did not propose to go into the other grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal. Also refer a recent decision of Honble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of District Magistrate

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

3 Assessment Years.: 2008-09 to 2010-11 4] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred inconfirming the action of the AO in respect of fastened the liability on the assessee u/s 206C of the Act. 5] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) ought

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

3 Assessment Years.: 2008-09 to 2010-11 4] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred inconfirming the action of the AO in respect of fastened the liability on the assessee u/s 206C of the Act. 5] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) ought

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

3 Assessment Years.: 2008-09 to 2010-11 4] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT(A) erred inconfirming the action of the AO in respect of fastened the liability on the assessee u/s 206C of the Act. 5] That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) ought