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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2\nMoreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

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

TDS was deducted by Bharat Petroleum Co. Ltd.\n2.2 Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that the case of the assessee firm for the AY\n2011-12 was also reflecting in NMS/AIIMS module of the system, therefore, the assessee\nwas given ample opportunities for filing its ITR for the relevant AY vide office letter no. 917 dated\n30.07.2015

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR vs. RAVI INFRABUILD PROJECTS LIMITED, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2023-24, whereby relief was granted to the assessee in respect of the disallowance of TDS credit under section 143(1) by CPC, Bengaluru. 2. In the present appeal Revenue has raised sole ground which read as under: “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

MARBLE KINGDOM INDIA PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO,WARD-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Marble Kingdom India Private Income Tax Officer, 365, Lodha Complex, Shashtri Vs Ward-Tds, Circle, Udaipur Udaipur Pan: Jdhm06807D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. Prerana Choudhary-Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y. 2013-14 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act Dated 31.12.2019 Passed By Income Tax Officer (Tds), Udaipur. 2. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Under Section 154 Of The Act Against The Order Under Section 200A. Assessee Requested The Ito To Rectify The Levy Of Fee Charged Under Section 234E Of The Act. The Ld. Ito Rejected The Application On The Ground That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent From Record As It Is A Debatable Issue. The Relevant Paragraph Of The Order Is Reproduced Here As Under:- Marble Kingdom India Pvt. Ltd. “3. On-Going Through The Record It Is Noticed That It Is Not A Mistake Apparent On Record & Issue Is Debatable & Also Not Covered U/S 154 Of The Act. Thus The Contention Of The Deductor/Assessee Is Not Tenable Because The Hon'Ble Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Has Dismissed The Appeals In The Case Of M/S Dundlod Shikdhan Sansthan & Anr. V/S Union Of India & Ors. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8672/2014 Dated 28.07.2015 On This Issue. Hence Considering The Facts Of The Case & Decision Of Jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court The Application Filed By The Assessee U/S 154 Is Rejected Accordingly.”

250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2013-14 emanating from order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act dated 31.12.2019 passed by Income Tax Officer (TDS), Udaipur. 2. The assessee has filed an application under section 154 of the Act against the order under section 200A. Assessee requested the ITO to rectify the levy of fee charged

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

4. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that provisions of section 194A of the Act are not applicable to the interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd., as it is covered under exceptions provided in Explanation –III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act. He submitted, though, AU Financiers (India) Ltd. was registered as a NBFC

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

4. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that provisions of section 194A of the Act are not applicable to the interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd., as it is covered under exceptions provided in Explanation –III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act. He submitted, though, AU Financiers (India) Ltd. was registered as a NBFC

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

4. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that provisions of section 194A of the Act are not applicable to the interest paid to AU Financiers (India) Ltd., as it is covered under exceptions provided in Explanation –III(a) to section 194A(3) of the Act. He submitted, though, AU Financiers (India) Ltd. was registered as a NBFC

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 2 Shri Manish Sharma, Kota. 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed by ld. JCIT u/s 271E of the Income

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

SHRI BHERU LAL GARG,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Ys. 2011-12 to 2016-17. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(TDS), Udaipur, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 206C (6) /206C (6A) and 206C (7) of the Act. I.T.A. Nos. 159 to 166/Jodh/2023 Assessment Years

C L TRADERS,BIKANER vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal filed by thassessee bearing

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2017-18, date of order 14/03/2024.The impugned order emanated from the order of the Learned Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalore (for brevity, the “Ld. AO”), order passed under section 144 of the Act, date of order 21/12/2019. 2 Sanwala Ram Choudhary 2. The brief facts