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 :

46) of the Income Tax Act or any sub-section of section 10 comes to their relief nor they are registered as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the Income Tax Officer (TDS

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 :

46) of the Income Tax Act or any sub-section of section 10 comes to their relief nor they are registered as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the Income Tax Officer (TDS

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 :

46) of the Income Tax Act or any sub-section of section 10 comes to their relief nor they are registered as trust as per provisions of section 11 and 12 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since these EDCs/VFPMCs are not registered as Co-operative Society, the Income Tax Officer (TDS

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

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

TDS was also deducted thereon and when PAN were provided for all the persons and all the amounts received from them through accounts payee cheques then treating them as not genuine transactions are harsh on assessee. 13.4 The Ld. AO as well as Hon CIT (Exemptions) did not made any further enquiry of the concerned persons, nor had issued summons

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

46,70,182.00\nAmount of compensation By High Court in year 2016\nCompensation Rs.5,60,56,954.00\nInterest u/s 28 of Lac Act 1894 Rs.8,86,73,960.00\nSir, the above said interest was received under section 28 of LAC Act\n1894. Copy of certificate of interest received from LAC officer, Gurgaon\nis enclosed.\n5.That the land was urban agriculture

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

46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. TDS return was filed delayed, due to which, the AO invoked the Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act. He further submitted that Section 194C(6) provides that no deduction (TDS) is required to be made on sum paid or credited

RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

10 CTR 354) held that an appeal means an effective appeal- "Expression "prefer an appeal" would mean effectively prosecuting an appeal’’ Purposefully interpreted, preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it. If a party retreats before the contest begins, it is as good as not having entered the fray. 6.5. The Hon'ble MP High

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

46 taxmann.com 444 (Cal.). The ld. A/R has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in case of ACIT vs. M/s. M.C. Sharma Associates & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1028/JP/2011 dated 23.08.2013 wherein it was held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) does not apply for less deduction of tax at source as the said provision

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

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

10 Cantt Board Vs ITO (TDS) Tribunal at page 14 of the impugned judgment) removed all the doubts on this issue." (Emphasis supplied) 17. It would also be apposite to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case Sona Chandi Oal Committee v. State of Maharashtra [2005] 2 SCC 345 and which judgment has been referred

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)

46,471/- which should have been subjected to TDS u/s 195 of the Act. Thus no TDS has been made on difference of Rs 1,06,97,070/- which should have been disallowed by the AO. iii) The assessee has paid commission of Rs. 52.41,000/- to its directors as claimed in ITR. However no TDS was made on commission

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

TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu submitted its objections and reply whereby it argued that on the facts and circumstances of its case, provisions of Section 194J cannot be made applicable to it. However, the AO did not agree with the objection of the respondent assessee and given a finding that the services provided by the study centre

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.

46. Deduction under Section 80IA, 80IC etc. reflect specific and clear intention of legislature to grant tax holiday in respect of specified business in those sections for a tenure of 10 years. The said decision of the Government to give tax holiday in deserving cases cannot be abrogated or compromised by a technical interpretation of provisions of section 115JB

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.

46. Deduction under Section 80IA, 80IC etc. reflect specific and clear intention of legislature to grant tax holiday in respect of specified business in those sections for a tenure of 10 years. The said decision of the Government to give tax holiday in deserving cases cannot be abrogated or compromised by a technical interpretation of provisions of section 115JB

M/S BHAGIRATH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR

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

TDS by Punjab Technical University on the franchisee fees paid by them which is payment of part of the amount received from the students could not make the activity of the assessee as business as observed in the decision referred supra. Hence, for these reason the exemption u/s 10(23C) cannot be denied. 6. It was further submitted that another

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS by taking a view that circular has been withdrawn and treating the sales commission as fee for technical services. It is pertinent to note that this commission was given for procuring the export orders from outside India. Sourcing orders abroad for which payment had been made directly to the nonresident does not fall in the category of technical services

M/S. SATYAM POLYPLAST,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

46[Provided that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted during the previous year but paid after the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed