MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

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

3) of the Act; the Tribunal held ‘yes’ that the assessing authority had such power and after 01.06.2015, the Assessing Officer was within his limit to levy fees under section 234E of the Act even while processing the TDS statements under section 200A of the Act. In view of the present set of facts, where the Assessing Officer had charged

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

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

3 that the notice was issued by the ACIT, Circle-1 Jodhpur on dated 08.01.2015 related Sections 274/271C for the impugned assessment year. The long time revenue was totally inaction and not levied the penalty. The ld. AR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). The relevant paragraph no. 4.3 to 6 are reproduced as below

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

3) were satisfied, the liability of the payer to deduct tax at source would cease. The requirement of such payer to furnish details to the income tax authority in the prescribed form within prescribed time would arise later and any infraction in such a requirement would not make the requirement of deduction at source applicable." Our view also finds support

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

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

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

253 ITR 798 (SC). Prayer: In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.” To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

253 ITR 798 (SC). Prayer: In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.” To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee

SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS, UDAIPUR

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

253 ITR 798 (SC). Prayer: In view of above facts and circumstance and with the sympathy and settled legal position, the delay so caused may kindly be condoned.” To this effect, the assesee has filed an affidavit as to the condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee

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.

3. STATE OF UP Vs. BAHADUR SINGH & OTHERS (1983)142 ITR 745(SC) It was judicially decided that where the explanation for the delay is convincing and reasonable, a writ petition cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that the same was filed after a long time. 4. ANIL SON1 V/s. ITO (1992) 52 TAXMAN 48,49 (J&K): Laches