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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

11-2006 and cash was found from possession of assessee - Assessee had drawn cash flow statement for entire period of six years in order to determine undisclosed income based on seized material for each of six assessment years - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

11-2006 and cash was found from possession of assessee Assessee had drawn cash flow statement for entire period of six years in order to determine undisclosed income based on seized material for each of six assessment years - Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed by invoking Explanation 5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi) wherein it was held where\nincome surrendered by assessee during survey had been shown by it in its regular\nincome-tax return filed within prescribed time, penalty could be imposed. Thus\nthe Ld. CIT(A) has followed the above decisions and deleted the penalty on the\ndeclared income of Rs.1,80,00,000/-. However

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS 1,44,565 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.1,41,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 71,75,575/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

11,07,351/-, on Exhibition expenses Rs. 15,70,429/- and on Testing Expenses Rs. 2,09,191/- to non-residents. As per section 195 of the I.T. Act, the assessee was liable to make the above payments after making TDS. But the assessee has failed to do so. 3.1 The issue as to whether the assessee was liable

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\n5\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.1,41,42,000/-\nRs.71,75,575/-\n\nAfter

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

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

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 of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

TDS, in this case, the same deserves\nto be initiated and conducted by the jurisdictional AO i.e. Ld. ACIT/JCIT-\nTDS. However, the same was conducted by non-jurisdictional AO and\nthere was no transfer order u/s 127. In accordance to the settled law, the\nproceedings will be initiated by jurisdictional AO only. The action of the\nLd. AO was beyond

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

11 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) 7. For the purposes, it would be relevant to understand the obligation cast upon the assessee bank at the first place. Section 192(1

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.

11,686/-, which is taxable in the hands of assessee as discussed above. The assessee is being as AOP and income of the assessee is assessed as per provisions of section 164 of I.T. Act. at Maximum Marginal Rate. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1 has not 4 Shri Parnami Panchayat been pressed in the written submission as reproduced in Para no. 4 above and is, therefore, dismissed. Ground no. 5 challenges in non granting of TDS credit. Since this is a matter of verification the Ld. AO is directed to do the same and allow further credit for TDS, if admissible

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition on account of payment through credit card can be made. Facts & Submission:- 1. During the year under consideration assessee entered into a contract with QFS Consultancy Private Limited to provide infrastructure support services. Total consideration received by the assessee is Rs.13,90,000/- on which TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition on account of payment through credit card can be made. Facts & Submission:- 1. During the year under consideration assessee entered into a contract with QFS Consultancy Private Limited to provide infrastructure support services. Total consideration received by the assessee is Rs.13,90,000/- on which TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 139A. You are hereby requested to appear before me on 21-03-2014 at Room No. 11, N.C.R.B., Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur and show cause why the orders imposing aforesaid penalty / penalties on you should not be made of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If you do not avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

11. So far as the appeal on merits is concerned, we find that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act, but it was denied on the ground that the return was not filed before the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The provisions of section 80AC are very clear that if the return

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

TDS and accordingly no tax was deducted in terms of section 194A. In support of claim, assessee had furnished certificate in form 26A from CA of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., in accordance with proviso to section 201(1) r.w.s. rule 31ACB, certifying that the taxes in respect of interest income of Rs. 55,16,628/-were duly paid