MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 200A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, under which the machinery was provided 33 for the Assessing Officer to process the TDS

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 200A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, under which the machinery was provided 33 for the Assessing Officer to process the TDS

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT,TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 200A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, under which the machinery was provided 33 for the Assessing Officer to process the TDS

MUNICIPAL BOARD,PHALODI vs. JCIT-TDS, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

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

section 200A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, under which the machinery was provided 33 for the Assessing Officer to process the TDS

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

section 200A of the Act were inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, under which the machinery was provided 33 for the Assessing Officer to process the TDS

AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR 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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

BOHAR SINGH,SRI KARANPUR 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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

ANU SETIYA,SADULSHAHAR 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

section 194Q on the purchase value of crop of the farmer purchased through kacha arhtiya, and it is not the sale or turnover of the kacha arthia, and actually it was sale of the farmer. The Ld. AR pleaded that considering the legal and factual position, the assessee is entitled for credit of whole amount of TDS as claimed

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.”

TDS statements for F.Y. 2012-13 were belatedly filed on 23.07.2013 and 16.10.2013 for 2nd, 3rd & 4th quarter. The said statements were processed and order under section 200A of the Act was passed levying a late fee under section 234E of the Act of Rs. 1,33

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

33 taxamann.com 588) (Delhi Trib)] When the himself Surrendered the amount during the asst proceedings and tax was deducted from TDS, No further appeal was filed. Therefore provision of section

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

KANAK KUMAR JAIN L/H OF PARTNER OF M/S. KESARIYAJI FILLING STATION,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

33,54,56,594/- which comes to Rs. 16,77,283/- in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the IT Act during survey proceedings. 2.1 Further, as per ITS data available on the system, assessee had made cash deposit of Rs. 19,77,80,000/- in its bank account no. 61100346101 at SBBJ, Rishabdeo Branch during the year under consideration

SUKHDEV CHAYAL,BIKANER vs. PCIT-1,, JODHPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Sukhdev Chayal, Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Near Ratan Sagar Well, Jodhpur. Bikaner. Pan No. Afjpc 9250 J

TDS is same i.e. 10% under both the 11 ITA 26/Jodh/2021 Sukhdev Chayal Vs PCIT Sections. Thus there is no escapement of income from the clutches of revenue. It is therefore sincerely requested that the impugned order passed by Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be quashed and oblige.” 5. On the other hand

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

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