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

TDS to be Interest Total default payment Name of recipient deducted Int. to NBFC AU Small 1,04,040,76/- 10,40,408/- 4,22,517/- 14,62,925/- u/s 194-A Finance (become Bank w.e.f 19/04/2017) Int. to NBFC 12,72,663/- 1,27,266/- 57,309/- 1,84,575/- HDB u/s 194-A Financial Services

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 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\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

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

57 ITR 521 (SC) " CIT vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 263 ITR 610 (MP) " ITO vs. Liyakat Ali 83 TTJ 769 (Jd) " Balaji Textiles vs. ITO 49 ITD 177 (Bom) " Acit vs. Rakesh M. Shah 86 TTJ (Mum) 288 Mewar Hospital Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 5.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the findings recorded in the orders

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts

SH. MOHD. JAVED BELIM,JODHPUR vs. ACIT (TDS), JODHPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

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

TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. Similar view has been expressed by Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (2006) 287 ITR 354 (Raj.) and CIT V/s Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 223 CTR (SC) 20, Thus in view of such facts