KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,401/- under section\n194C on which TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,401/- under section\n194C on which TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,401/- under section\n194C on which TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,401/- under section\n194C on which TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

23,401/- under section\n194C on which TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant

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

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. The appellant has challenged sole and common issue regarding disallowance of the claim of TDS deducted on transaction of Kaccha Arahtia claimed

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. Having taken note of the fact, we are of the view that the duty is cast upon the assessee to furnish primary facts to establish that the recipient of the payment has offered the income to tax. Since, no material has been brought on record by the assessee to establish such claim, we decline to interfere with

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. Having taken note of the fact, we are of the view that the duty is cast upon the assessee to furnish primary facts to establish that the recipient of the payment has offered the income to tax. Since, no material has been brought on record by the assessee to establish such claim, we decline to interfere with

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. Having taken note of the fact, we are of the view that the duty is cast upon the assessee to furnish primary facts to establish that the recipient of the payment has offered the income to tax. Since, no material has been brought on record by the assessee to establish such claim, we decline to interfere with

KALU RAM SUSHIL KUMAR,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

JAGDISH PRASAD AND SONS HUF,HANUMANGARH JN. vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC BANGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMERPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

VIMLA DEVI,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

GANESH SINGH GULAB JI,SUMERPUR vs. DDIT, CPC, BENGALURU, INCOME TAX OFFICER-SUMEPUR, SUMERPUR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

KULDEEP,GOLUWALA DISTT.HANUMANGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1,, INCOME-TAX OFFICE, NEAR COLLECTORATE, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

RAJESH GOYAL,HANUMANGARH TOWN vs. ITO WARD 1, HANUMANGARH

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

HARDEV SINGH,GAJSINGHPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Ble

23 M/s Sahi Ram Mandi Hanumangarh 5666 L Ram, 85B Nai Anaj Mandi, Hanumangarh - 335512 1. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual) 2. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 3. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) 4. Shri Rajesh Goyal, CA (Virtual) Assessee By 5. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 6. Shri Arun Chordia, CA (Physical) 7. Shri Vedant Gupta, CA (Virtual

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand