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

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

26 M/s.Tirupati College of Technical Education Society vs LD. CIT( Exemption), Jaipur Less: Term Loan & OD (Secured on the above fixed Assets) : (31701392.00) Net Assets (A) : 16643097.00 Investment in FDR (B) : 5834947.00 Cash at Bank (C) : 203788.00 Total (A+B+C) : 22681832.00 The above figure clearly explains that the assessee had surplus funds only for Rs. 118.58 lacs though

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

10. Receipts not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee has preferred present appeal against the additions/disallowances sustained by ld. CIT(A). 6. The AO assessed the finding that as per the AIR information available in this case, the assessee company not disclosed its receipts against the TDS deducted

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

10. Receipts not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee has preferred present appeal against the additions/disallowances sustained by ld. CIT(A). 6. The AO assessed the finding that as per the AIR information available in this case, the assessee company not disclosed its receipts against the TDS deducted

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)

26-42) after disallowing TDS credit claimed to the extent of Rs. 2,09,560/- by invoking Rule 37BA TDS claimed in ITR under various 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

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

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

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act. Submission:- 9. The Appellant is a civil contractor and carries on the business with his proprietary concern M/s Radhakishan, having registration with PWD, Rajasthan in AA class category. Project road work “Widening and Strengthen to two lane with paved shoulder of Nimbi Jodha-Degana-Merta city section of NH-458 from

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act. Submission:- 9. The Appellant is a civil contractor and carries on the business with his proprietary concern M/s Radhakishan, having registration with PWD, Rajasthan in AA class category. Project road work “Widening and Strengthen to two lane with paved shoulder of Nimbi Jodha-Degana-Merta city section of NH-458 from

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 161 to 164 of the Act. Accordingly, once the respective shares of the beneficiaries are found to be terminable, the income is required to be taxed in the hands of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries but certainly not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case. Accordingly, AO’s action

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

SHRI AJAY MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS U/s 192 of the Act. The relevant part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal is as under: ITA 1041/JP/2018_ 5 Ajay Mathur Vs ITO “3.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and :-e submissions of the appellant, Based on information available with the Assessing Officer regarding receipts

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

10% u/s. 194I of the Act, thereby lesser deduction of tax. The revenue has made out a case of lesser deduction of tax and that also under different head and accordingly disallowed the payments proportionately by invoking the provisions of section 6 M/s. Vastuvedik Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Kota. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Ld. CIT, DR also

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

10 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT which TDS was liable and further the auditors have also relied upon the representation without verification by them that the amount deducted/collected has been paid within the prescribed time under the Act. It means the auditors have not performed their legal duties cast upon them by the Act, in correct and right perspective

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

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

26,680/- but it is gathered that TDS thereon has not been deducted by you u/s 194C of the I.T. Act. 4. In response to this notice the assessee filed reply vide letter dated 27/06/2019 explaining that the total payment of Rs.163.34 lacs during five different financial years, namely, FY 2014-15 to 2018-19 (relevant

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

26,680/- but it is gathered that TDS thereon has not been deducted by you u/s 194C of the I.T. Act. 4. In response to this notice the assessee filed reply vide letter dated 27/06/2019 explaining that the total payment of Rs.163.34 lacs during five different financial years, namely, FY 2014-15 to 2018-19 (relevant

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

26,680/- but it is gathered that TDS thereon has not been deducted by you u/s 194C of the I.T. Act. 4. In response to this notice the assessee filed reply vide letter dated 27/06/2019 explaining that the total payment of Rs.163.34 lacs during five different financial years, namely, FY 2014-15 to 2018-19 (relevant

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

26,680/- but it is gathered that TDS thereon has not been deducted by you u/s 194C of the I.T. Act. 4. In response to this notice the assessee filed reply vide letter dated 27/06/2019 explaining that the total payment of Rs.163.34 lacs during five different financial years, namely, FY 2014-15 to 2018-19 (relevant