ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

TDS - CPC (in short, 'AO') raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , TDS, CPC, SURAT

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Si. No.

TDS - CPC (in short, 'AO') raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SAIYEDPURA SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS CPC, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,ALTRET HOUSE, SAIYEDPURA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICXER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

ALTRET INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, CPC, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing)

TDS - CPC (in short, ‘AO’) raised demand of Rs.14,170/- due to short payment of tax of Rs.10,750/- and consequential interest of Rs.3,240/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) issued 4 notices, which is at para 2 of the appellate order. There was non-compliance

RAVINDRANTH J. MISHRA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS) of Rs.8,960/- while making payment of Rs.8,96,080/-, copy of Form 26AS is placed on record. 10. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that though return was already filed before ITO, Ward-3, Vapi and case of assessee 8 Ravindranath J. Mishra was reopened by Assessing Officer by recording reasons that no return of income was filed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. JARIWALA ENTERPRISE,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S. Jariwala Enterprises, Circle-3, Surat 120-121, Abhikram, Opp. Bhulka Bhavan School, Adajan, Surat-395010. Pan/Gir No.Aacfj0019L Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda (Sr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Mehul R. Shah

240/-. The notice u/s 133(6) was issued to M/s. HCL Infinite Ltd. and Nokia India (P) Ltd. calling for following information. Both the companies furnished the information, the assessee failed to justify the claim of expenses of Sale Promotion and Rate difference on the subject mentioned in the assessment year in sum of Rs.2,46,96,370/-, therefore