MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

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

TDS returns is appealable. The demand raised by way of charging of fees under section 234E of the Act is under section 156 of the Act and any demand raised under section 156 of the Act is appealable under section 246A(1)(a) and (c) of the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the findings of CIT(A) in this regard

ITO, TDS-2, JODHPUR, JODHPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMBHAT, HUF, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenuebearing ITA No

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

TDS), Jodhpur and submissions of the appellant. There are two issues to be adjudicated upon; firstly, whether the penalty is time barred and secondly. whether the AO was right in imposing the penalty of Rs.6,000/-. To appreciate issue in better perspective, it is imperative to recapitulate the S.275 which is reads as under:- Bar of limitation for imposing penalties

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

TDS, which it was obliged to do. It had, accordingly, made a reference to the ld. JCIT. This was obviously for the purposes of imposition of penalty. The reference, thus, clearly marked the first step for initiation of action for imposition of penalty. The show cause notice issued subsequently was to provide the assessee an opportunity to show cause

M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 201(1 A). CIT V Rishikesh Apartments Co-operative Housing Society Limited 253 ITR 310 (Guj.)Where the entire tax payable by payee has been paid by him as advance tax and tax on self assessment, interest can’t be levied u/s 201(1 A) Solar Automobile India Private Limited V. DCIT 64 DTR 34 (Kar.) In this case

ACIT, CHITTORGARH vs. M/S.THE BANSWARA CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., BANSWARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

253/ Jodh/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2012-13 ) The ACIT Vs The Banswara Central Circcle Cooperative Bank Ltd. Chittorgarh College Road, Banswara (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AACAT 1916 D Assessee By Shri Amit Kothari,CA Revenue By Smt Alka Rajvanshi Jain, (CIT-DR) Date of hearing 31/10/2022 3/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

253 ITR 745 (Delhi) wherein it was held that levy of penalty is not automatic and the absence of a ‘reasonable cause’ is necessary. 13. Further, the Coordinate Bench of Indore ITAT, in the case of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs ACIT in ITA No. 713/Ind/2015, 2016 Tax Pub (DT) 4071 (Ind-Trib) has held as under: “that

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

TDS assessment u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) was completed for A.Y. 2011-12 on dated 29.03.202019 by raising the demand of Rs.43.229/- u/s 206C(6A)/206C(7) Against which the assessee has filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) who has decided the appeal and passed the order on dt. 05.10.2021 which was served not served upon the assessee