SARDA DEVI CHECHANI,UDAIPUR vs. ITO TDS , UDAIPU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

bogus demand of Rs.43,229/- u/s 206C has been created by the AO which in fact is not at all tenable as the assessee had already submitted the requisite Form No.27C at the time of assessment proceedings, which clearly exempt the liability of TCS if goods are to be used in manufacturing further. I am attaching the copy of Form

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

201 of the Act, the relevant provisions of which are as under: “(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company- (a) who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of this Act or (b) referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192, being an employer, does not deduct, or does

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in\nprinciple even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the\nfollowing judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even\nwhere the books of accounts were not rejected.\nCase referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

201/- as it was in immediately preceding year. The reasons for this down fall as is explained by the assessee reads as under : "Decrease in contract receipts is approximately 42.40% as compared to last year. All work contracts are allotted on the basis of tender system. It is further submitted that in this line of business competition is very high