SH. SURENDRA LAAD ,738-A, RK PURAM, SECTOR A, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS schedule of ITR filed by the assessee, it was noticed that the assessee had earned an amount of Rs. 34,81,908/- as income under the head salary resulting in tax deduction of Rs. 8,36,435/-. However, the assessee had shown salary income of Rs.7,91,168/- only in part B-TI of the ITR.The assessee has claimed

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.

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 on combined reading of the provisions of section 115JB on one hand and section 80IA and section 80IC on the other hand. 47. It is further a point of view that

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.

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 on combined reading of the provisions of section 115JB on one hand and section 80IA and section 80IC on the other hand. 47. It is further a point of view that

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

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 on combined reading of the provisions of section 115JB on one hand and section 80IA and section 80IC on the other hand.\n47. It is further a point of view that

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

10 years. The\nsaid decision of the Government to give tax holiday in deserving\ncases cannot be abrogated or compromised by a technical\ninterpretation of provisions of section 115JB on combined reading\nof the provisions of section 115JB on one hand and section 80IA\nand section 80IC on the other hand.\n47. It is further a point of view that

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

10 (Delhi - Trib.)\nheld that "Section 6 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with\nArticle 17 of OECD Model Tax Convention Residential\nstatus (Artistes and sportsmen) - Assessment year 2009-10\nWhether going abroad for purpose of employment also\nmeans going abroad to take up employment or any\nallocation which takes in self employment like business or\nprofession Held

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. The decisions relied by the AO are not applicable

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS 10. TDS Demand 8020/- 8020 NIL (Double Addition) 10. Receipts

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS 10. TDS Demand 8020/- 8020 NIL (Double Addition) 10. Receipts

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 :

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) vs. Divisional Forest Officer provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act are also not applicable on them. Hence

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 :

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) vs. Divisional Forest Officer provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act are also not applicable on them. Hence

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 :

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) vs. Divisional Forest Officer provisions of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act are also not applicable on them. Hence

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

5 of the judgment, their Lordships found that: 'Section 34 casts obligation upon Collector to pay interest after compensation is worked out. Section 28 puts similar obligation upon the Court when the Court finds that the compensation awarded under section 11 was inadequate. Therefore, there is no change in nature of interest either u/s.28 or section 34. Even if court

BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL,KISHANGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n20/02/2024

10\nor under sub-clause (iii) of clause (ac) of sub-section (1) of section 12A. However no relaxation\nwas given for application of approval under clause (iii) of first proviso to section 80G(5).\n10. In para 4 (page 2) of the said circular, it is admitted that several trust have not been able\nto apply for registration / approval

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)

10,59,897 194H Commission 97,862 19,56,544 21,94,075 194Q Sales made as Nil, as sales by kachaa 4 KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, KOTA Kachaa Arhatiya 30,009 3,00,09,181 arhatiya is not the on which TDS Turnover of assessee. made by certain Commission receipt buyers declared Total

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