AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

24,621/- as against Rs. 1,86,084/-. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on\nthe ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were\nshown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD - 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

24,621/- has been allowed, as against total TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

Appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

24,621/- has been allowed, as against total TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section

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.”

TDS statements by deductor would result in perennial problems being faced by Department while processing return of income and it would result in financial burden to Government namely on account of late payment of refund interest- Held, yes- Whether since section 234E levies a fee to regularize said late filing, it could not be hied that section 234E suffered from

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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

24 Prop. M/s Sanjay Shriganganaga 7483 R Trading Company, r Shop No. 81, New Dhan Mandi, Raisinghnagar, Ganganagar 8. 38/Jodh/2025 2022- Rajesh Goyal ITO Ward – 1 AKMPG 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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

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

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred

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

TDS on such payments could be provided by the appellant either before the AO or before me to prove his contention. (v) Further during the search proceedings, the issue of payment to third parties was confronted to Sh. Manish Chhaparwal, M.D. of Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd., who, it is observed did not raise any objection on this aspect as referred