AJAYAB SINGH MUKHTYAR SINGH,PADAMPUR vs. ITO WARD 1, SRI GANGANAGAR

86,084/-. Thus disallowed the claim of TDS on\nthe ground that gross receipts as per form 26AS is more than that of what were\nshown in the ITR. This appears due to TDS deducted by the buyer under section

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR 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

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant

MUKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,RAISINGHNAGAR 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

TDS of Rs. 1,86,084/- claimed by the Appellant. 3. Being aggrieved by the order under section 143(1) of the Act, the Appellant

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORET,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,DUNGARPUR vs. ITO (TDS),, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (NORTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH),UDAIPUR vs. ITO (TDS), UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,BANSWARA vs. ITO, TDS,, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

section 194C. 3. There was no liability of TDS also in view of the fact that the same is also not taxable even in the hands of the recipient and the appellant cannot be treated as assessee is default. 4. The appellant pray for suitable costs. 5. The Appellant crave, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter

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

section 194C and the decision of ITAT Ahmedabad dt.14.03.2014 in appeal no.1722/Ahd/2010 in the case of Income Tax Officer (TDS) vs. GAIL (India) Ltd. It is held that the appellant rightly deducted TDS on the payment of Rs. 3,86

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

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 of the lower authorities and prayed to sustain the addition to the extent confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). 5.4 We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material placed on record and also gone