GYANESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

37,082 sources That the asseesse claimed the amount of Rs 46,23,490/- as retrenchment compensation which was exempted under section 10(10B) of the income tax act 1961 (as shown in the above table) in the income tax return but the Ld. AO has been alleged that the amount as received by the assessee is an Ex Gratia

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 has been deducted on the interest of the Land Acquisition Compensation, and the LAC interest has wrongly shown exempt under 10(38) instead of exempt under section 10(37

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

TDS not eligible for deduction\nunder Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37.\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed.\nEach of such issues is now being taken up by us, in the ensuing paragraphs.\n2.5.1 Disallowance under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, of Rs. 23,31,312/-\n35\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED

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

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 and it is allowable expenditure u/s. 37

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 and it is allowable expenditure u/s. 37

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)

37 BA. The TDS claimed in ITR under various sections has been mentioned as under:- Sec. Nature of receipts TDS as Amount shown Corresponding Income per 26AS in 26AS as offered in ITR (₹) (₹) 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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

10-12-2009 imposing a prohibition on the medical practitioner and their professional associations from taking any Gift, Travel facility, Hospitality, Cash or monetary grant from the pharmaceutical and allied health sector Industries. 3. Section 37(1) of Income Tax Act provides for deduction of any revenue expenditure (other than those failing under sections 30 to 36) from the business

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) When on the basis of the record it is not disputed that the requirements of further proviso were fulfilled, the assessee was not required to make any deduction at source on the payments made to the sub-contractors. If that be our conclusion, application of section 40(a)(ia) would not arise since, as already noticed, section

TEJ PAL SINGH,REENGUS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Me That The Capital Gain Earned On This Land Acquired By Nhai Was Exempt In Terms Of Provision Section 10 Sub-Section (37) Of The Act. He Drew My Attention To The Relevant Provision Of Section 10(37) Of The Act As Under:-

37) of the Act. I may add that the assessee be granted due opportunity of hearing. 10. The assessee has raised another contention before me stating that in the alternate, the computation of capital gains by the AO was incorrect. He drew my attention to the computation of capital gains by AO reproduced at para 2 of the assessment order

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

TDS commission for (refer Cases). Pages 9 to 13 of paper book of AR. there is an Audit objection Thirdly, The Ld DR submitted that according to the CBDT Circular, No 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012,the assesee has to be disallowance u/s 37 and the AO accordingly made disallowance Rs.5,37,270/-. Further, the Ld DR submitted that

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)

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL

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)

10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee he challenges the addition of Rs. 6,26,88,011/- under section 68 by treating the contract income from M/s DRAIPL as bogus. During the course of search proceedings in the case of M/s. DRAIPL

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

TDS amounting\nto Rs. 1,10,980/- as business expenditure under section 37(1)\nof the I.T Act.\n63. The brief

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

TDS amounting to Rs. 1,10,980/- as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the I.T Act. ACIT vs. Shree

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

TDS amounting to Rs. 1,10,980/- as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the I.T Act. ACIT vs. Shree

MADAN LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-7(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 10(37) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has sold such converted one\nresidential Immovable property as on 30.06.2016 for consideration\nof Rs.75,00,000/- with jointly with mother and not disclosed the\nsame in ITR under the head capital gain but offer consideration of\nRs.75,00,000/- as exempt u/s 10(37) of the Income

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

TDS could not be discharged by the assessee, therefore, it further establishes the violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT