ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

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

section\n271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by\nassessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in\nbalance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of\nassessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said date of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on records. Yours faithfully, 4 ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR SEAL Office of : ACIT

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section\n271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said\ndate of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on\nrecords.\n\nYours faithfully,\nSd/-\n\n4\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nSEAL\nOffice

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

1-4-1962 is rationalization of taxprovisions to restate the legislative intent in respect of scope and applicability of section 195 and also for providing certainty in law. Even though Explanation 2 to section 195 clarifles position of payments made to non- resident is subject to TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

1) is not automatic. The AO must verify whether taxes have been\npaid by the deductees. If the deductees have paid the taxes due, the deductor\ncannot be treated as an assessee-in-default.\nJagran Prakashan Ltd. v. DCIT (TDS) (2012) 21 taxmann.com 489 (All HC):\nFacts: The AO passed an order under Section

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

TDS provisions have to be read limited to provisions of section 194C(6) or have to be read together in terms of section 194C(6) and section 194C(7) of the Act. The relevant provisions read as under: 81 194C. 82(1

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1)(c), assessee's status\nwas to be regarded as non-resident - Held, yes\"\nk. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC' incase of Avdesh Kumar\nV. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1,\nGhaziabad* [2018] 96 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi - Trib.) held\nthat \"Section 6, read with section 5, of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 Residential status (Individual) Assessment\nyear

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS, the Tribunal considered it compensatory and thus deductible, and the NFAC's view was plausible. For the excess MAT credit, the Tribunal found that rectifying the issue would fall under Section 154, not Section 263, as it involved a mistake rather than an erroneous application of law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 14A", "Section 36(1

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1,283\n7.1 In this regard submission made by the appellant is as below\n1. At the outset it is submitted that as per section 148 before making the assessment u/s\n147, the AO is required to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish return\nof his income. Thus service of notice u/s 148 is a condition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition on account of payment through credit card can be made. Facts & Submission:- 1. During the year under consideration assessee entered into a contract with QFS Consultancy Private Limited to provide infrastructure support services. Total consideration received by the assessee is Rs.13,90,000/- on which TDS

HIMANSHU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS credit and was accordingly issued refund but in the subsequent year i.e. the year under consideration (A.Y. 2017-18), the assessee received notice u/s 143(1) of the Act intimating the assessee that the stipend is proposed to be added to the total income of the assessee. As per records, in response thereto, the assessee categorically stated that said

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS provisions are not attracted on the Finance Charges payment to Banks and NBFC companies u/s 194A of the I.T. Act, Section 194A(3)(iii) exempts from deduction of ITDS on income credited or paid to any Banking Company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 applies. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

section Field 26A Paper Up to & 201(1A) Assessing including 2016- and/or Officer 17 40(a)(ia) (TDS)[1] CPC-TDS

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care