INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST SOUTH, UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

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

35,103/- to Booking.com and payment of Rs.4,59,874/- to Shiva Laundry having subjected to the proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The only submission made by learned counsel before us is that the Assessing Officer failed to verify whether payments are covered under the first proviso to section 201. Having taken note

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

35,103/- to Booking.com and payment of Rs.4,59,874/- to Shiva Laundry having subjected to the proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The only submission made by learned counsel before us is that the Assessing Officer failed to verify whether payments are covered under the first proviso to section 201. Having taken note

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

35,103/- to Booking.com and payment of Rs.4,59,874/- to Shiva Laundry having subjected to the proceedings under section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The only submission made by learned counsel before us is that the Assessing Officer failed to verify whether payments are covered under the first proviso to section 201. Having taken note

JAI PRAKASH SUWALKA,UDAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS has invoked the provisions of Section 206C(1) and treating assessee in default u/s 206C(6) for charged liability of TCS of Rs. 5,31, 158/- @ 2.50% and interest of Rs. 4,83, 354/- vide order dated 18.10.2021 for sale of Mahua treating it as Forest Produce based on Rajasthan State Notification dated 27.10.2014 The assessee has preferred

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

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\ngiven 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

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

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

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances

MEWAR HOSPITAL PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

35,26,425/- made on account of suppression of x-ray receipts. The Ld. CIT(A) ignored the principle of preponderance of human probability as laid down by Hon'ble SC in the case Sumati Dayal v. CIT(1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) & CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC)" 4. Whether on the fact and circumstances