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 u/s 14A is calculated

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

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

14 M/s.Tirupati College of Technical Education Society vs LD. CIT( Exemption), Jaipur 2.2 Further the department has also filled the MA in this case and the MA filed by the department has also been rejected by the Honble Bench on dt 24.07.2018 (MA no. 53/JP/2018)(PB73-87 case law index). 2.3 Against the order of the Honble ITAT the department

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 :

14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 where as these EDCs/VFPMCs do not fall into category of State Government or Local Authority as per Section 10(20) or section 10

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 :

14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 where as these EDCs/VFPMCs do not fall into category of State Government or Local Authority as per Section 10(20) or section 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 :

14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 where as these EDCs/VFPMCs do not fall into category of State Government or Local Authority as per Section 10(20) or section 10

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

14) of section 2;\n(ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the\ndate of transfer. was being used for agricultural purposes by such\nHindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his;\n(iii) such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law. or\na transfer the consideration for which is determined

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).

14 Krishan Pal Singh vs. ITO 1,27,13,420 claimed to have been exempt as per provision of section 10(37) of the Act or is chargeable to tax as per provision of section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. As is evident from the record that the assessee has received enhanced compensation as per provision of 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

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 the provision

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

10-21] which are of the nature supply of foods packets and not of the catering service. Had been a case of catering service the provision of section 194C shall apply but in this case this being the case of supply of foods and the same being subjected to GST the same shall not be considered as contract and therefore

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 being

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

14,400/- u/s 234E while processing the TDS return (26Q) u/s 200A of the Act for the second quarter of the F.Y 2012-13 relevant to impugned assessment year and the intimation u/s 200A of the Act was passed on 15th December, 2013. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has contended that prior to 01.06.2015, there was no enabling

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.

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

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS credit of Rs. 4,467/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer held that since the original return was not furnished U/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), therefore, revised return is void ab initio. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold immovable property held in joint names located at Banbeerpur, Tehsil- Tijara

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS credit of Rs. 4,467/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer held that since the original return was not furnished U/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), therefore, revised return is void ab initio. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold immovable property held in joint names located at Banbeerpur, Tehsil- Tijara

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

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, since these declarations were not verified by the AO, therefore, for this limited purpose we set aside the issue to the record of the AO to verify the correctness and genuineness of the declaration. Ground No. 3 is regarding an addition of Rs. 3,48,496/- on account of difference between receipts

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

section 201(1) of the Act. In view of the circular No.275/201/95 IT (B) dated 29.01.1997 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and more particularly