DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

section 80113(10) are applicable or not on the sale booked after the insertion of both these clauses. 5. The AO arrived the findings that the assessee company made investment in unquoted shares and Mutual Fund of Rs. 5,29,99,200/- but no expenditure has been debited to P/L account. Under the circumstances, the disallowance

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

10,295/- for late deposit of TDS, which was not allowable expenses. The appellant by citing provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) contended that the same are not disallowable under this section

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

10,295/- for late deposit of TDS, which was not allowable expenses. The appellant by citing provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) contended that the same are not disallowable under this section

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

sections was as under: - Sec. Nature of receipts TDS as Amount Corresponding Income per 26AS shown in offered in ITR (₹) (₹) 26AS as receipts (₹) 194A Interest 1,05,991 10,59,897 10

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

TDS compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

TDS compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

TDS compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

10(37) of the Act and as\nagreed by the Id. DR that there not change corresponding to\nsection 145B and 56(2)(viii) of the Act. The case law cited by the\nId. DR was related to application of section 194A of the Act and\nthere is no dispute in this case the TDS

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

TDS was deducted. The assessee has claimed that Rs. 1,27,13,420/- received by him. The said amount was received enhanced compensation of his land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Such income has been claimed as exempt income in the statement of income under section 10(37) of the Act on the grounds

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 statement U/s 271H: As per section 271H, where a person fails to file the statement of tax deducted/collect at source i.e. TDS/TCS return on or before the due dates prescribed in this regard, then assessing officer may direct such person to pay penalty under section 271H. Minimum penalty can be levied of Rs. 10,000 which

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

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

section 194C of the Act and therefore, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground no. 1 the assessee challenges the disallowance of Rs.22,54,737/- to the income of the assessee u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

section 10(23FB) of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in treating it as recoverable trust.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed by the assessee on 29.09.2011 declaring total income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

10 & 11). All other parties have deducted TDS u/s 194C. Even Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd., has deducted TDS u/s 194C on some amount and u/s 194H on some amount. From the copy of ledger account of Total Transport System Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice (PB 35-37, Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice