MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

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

253 of the Act. Hence, we admit the present appeals filed by the assessee even on this preliminary issue. We have already adjudicated the issue of charging fees under section 234E of the Act by the Assessing Officer while processing returns / statements in the paras hereinabove and in view thereof, we hold that the Assessing Officer is not empowered

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. We have also considered the case laws referred by both the sides. In this case the AO (JCIT) imposed the penalty under section 271E in contravention of provision of section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty

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

5. The ld. AR vehemently argued and submitted the written submission which are kept in the record. The ld. AR invited our attention in APB page 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

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

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

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.

5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the court to do the substantial justice to the parties by disposing of matter on "merits". The expression "Sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the court to apply the law in a meaning manner which sub serves the ends of justice- that being

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

5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted as under: 1. It is submitted that as per sec. 206(1A) no collection is to be made, if the buyer furnishes a declaration in writing in prescribed form 27C, that goods are to be utilized for the purposes of manufacturing, processing or producing articles

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