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

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

iii) any accretion to the shares, forming part of the corpus mentioned in sub-clause (i)[and sub-clause(ia)], by way of bonus shares allotted to the fund, trust or institution [or any university or other educational institution or any hospital or other medical institution]; (iv) voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jeweler, furniture

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/- it is submitted that the provision of section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced as under :- “any sum paid on account of Income Tax ( i.e. any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession) is not deductible. Similarly, any interest, penalty, fine for non-payment

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/- it is submitted that the provision of section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is reproduced as under :- “any sum paid on account of Income Tax ( i.e. any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession) is not deductible. Similarly, any interest, penalty, fine for non-payment

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

10,000 which can go upto Rs. 1,00,000. Penalty under section 271H will be in addition to late filing fees prescribed under section 234E. 4.4.4 Whether non filing of TDS return alongwith PAN details would attract provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act holding the assessee in default of non deduction of TDS under

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

TDS was deducted or not the nature of payment is\nrequired to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and thus, based\non the certificate of payment being placed on record stating that\nthe payment is as per provision of section 28 of the Land\nAcquisition Act we are of the considered we that the same is\ncovered

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

iii) in section 56 (2) would not be applicable on same. 9 Krishan Pal Singh vs. ITO 2. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 541 (Bangalore – Trib.) \ [2018] 172 ITD 332 (Bangalore – Trib.) [20-07-2018] In re : Income Tax Officer Vs Sangappa S. Kudarikannur : (See Par 14) : Interest awarded to assessee U/s 28 of Land Acquisition act 1894 on enhanced compensation paid

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

TDS was neither required to be deducted under Section 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under Section 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act, erred in remanding the ground of revision

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. iii. Further, during the course of hon’ble DRP proceedings, Hon’ble panel had directed ld. AO to re-verify the claim of such expense and had mentioned that such expense cannot be considered as expense for employees and is a business related expense but ld. AO has erred in not following the directions issued

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.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

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)

10% as per the provision of Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. section 194J of the Act but no TDS on the above payments were made. Therefore, the TDS liability was determined at Rs.59,11,080/-. That order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) considering his decision for the assessment year

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)

10% as per the provision of Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. section 194J of the Act but no TDS on the above payments were made. Therefore, the TDS liability was determined at Rs.59,11,080/-. That order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) considering his decision for the assessment year

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)

10% as per the provision of Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. section 194J of the Act but no TDS on the above payments were made. Therefore, the TDS liability was determined at Rs.59,11,080/-. That order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) considering his decision for the assessment year

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

iii). 2. We have heard the ld. D/R as well as the ld. A/R and considered the relevant material on record. The ld. D/R has submitted that since the assessee has not deducted tax at source in respect of the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- to Mahak Mehta as per the provisions of section 194J of the Act, therefore

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

III, that during the considering quarter, the report of TDS was submitted by us for salary of the government employees, all the taxes was paid timely but the TQS return was filed late due to some reasonable, unavoidable and sufficient causes for failure. a. during the quarter first there was limited staff b. during the said quarter all the staff

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

10. On a perusal of section 200, it is clear that sub-section (3) thereof, and with which we are concerned, inter alia stipulates that any person responsible for deducting any sum by way of tax, on or after 1st April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of Chapter XVII or, as the case may be, any person