WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

2)\nof the Act. Further no proper books of accounts have been maintained. TDS\nprovisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the trust is not entitled\nfor claiming exemption under the section 11

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

2) of the Act. Further no proper books of accounts have been maintained. TDS\nprovisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the trust is not entitled\nfor claiming exemption under the section 11

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS\nDeposited\n1\nICICI BANK LIMITED\nIFPRT01273G\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\n05-May-2010\n2936021.00\n295567.00\n29556706\n2\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n8522.06\nR$2.00\n852.00\n3\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n38422.00\n3842.00\n3842.00\n4\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n54440.00\n$449.00\n5449.00\n5\n194A

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

11-16) and 17.09.2022\n(APB 24-25), it was clarified by assessee that as per the provisions of section\n56(2), where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration for the\ntransfer of immovable property and the date of registration are not the same, the\nstamp duty value on the date of the agreement

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

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

TDS under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 11 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company In order to bring clarity, it is imperative to go into the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The provision of the section is as follows: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

TDS vide challanNo.48378 dated 20/03/2014 HDFC Bank\nDuring the year under consideration, i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15, sale\ndeed was registered on 21/03/2014, wherein the Stamp Valuation Authority\nadopted the value at Rs.2,77,87,868/- as against sale consideration of Rs.\n1,51,00,000/- received by the assessee. Thus, the value adopted by the Sub-\nregistrar for purposes

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)

TDS, if admissible, as per provisions of Income Tax Law and related Rules while giving effect to this Appeal Order. Thus, Ground no. 5, is partly allowed. Ground no.2,3& 4 challenge the action of Ld. A.O., in and non giving the benefit of Section 11 and 12 as the appellant failed to produce copy of Registration 12AA

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

TDS u/s. 194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS on selling commission payment of Rs. 2,11,07,351/-, on Exhibition expenses Rs. 15,70,429/- and on Testing Expenses Rs. 2,09,191/- to non-residents. As per section

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

section 11(4A) for claiming exemption.\n17. Profits earned by the assessee from such incidental business activities are being applied\nfor charitable activities only and accumulation, if any, falls within the permissible limits as\npresribted. Copies of ITR & Computation of total income of the assessee for 3 Financial Years\nare enclosed to verify the above fact. Hence the objections raised

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)

sections – 194A and 194H are fully declared in ITR i.e. either with same or higher amount than that appearing in Form 26AS, the entire TDS claimed u/s 194A and 194H deserves to be fully allowed. Hence the proportionate TDS disallowed to the extent of ₹1,79,551/- (₹2,09,560 – ₹30,009) i.e. TDS claimed u/s 194Q) is absolutely unjustified

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

11 /03/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by the assessee trust which is arising from the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Jaipur [hereinafter referred to as ld. CIT(E)] whereby the ld. CIT(E) held that the applicant society cannot be held as charitable within the meaning of Section 2

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

11 was inadequate. Therefore, there is no change in nature of interest either u/s.28 or section 34. Even if court hikes compensation for land and interest is awarded under Section 28 of the Act, upon such increased compensation, in the light of larger Bench judgment, the Department and Disbursing Authorities are bound to effect deduction of TDS'. On the interplay

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.

2(15) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer finding that the various income on which tax has 6. been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of assessee as discussed supra and ld. AO has observed that “TDS credit claimed by the assessee is allowable, if at any stage of appeal of any proceedings it has been held

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

Section 194 IA has to be made by Sh. Arvind Kumar Agrawal but no TDS details have been submitted to substantiate this stand. The Id. PCIT-1, Jaipur in para No. 11, 12 and 13 of the order u/s 263 at page '4 to 5' of the order has stated:- 11. "Perusal of the "agreement to sale dated 30.01.2018 shows

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

11,70,05,416 was paid as a Fees for\nTechnical Services and undisputedly TDS was deducted on it. Further,\nan amount of Rs. 38,41,373 was paid as a Royalty on which TDS was\nalso deducted. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,39,757 was paid for other\nservices and on this also TDS was deducted

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

11. We have heard rival submissions and gone through\nthe facts and circumstances of the case. The admitted position is that the\nassessee is a company and its registered office is at Kolkata (State of West\nBengal). For the assessment year (AY 2012-13) a notice u/s.143(2) of the Act\nhas been issued by DCIT, Circle-2, Gorakhpur (State

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

2) While determining as to\nwhether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the\nAssessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by this Court in\n'Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF\" [2009\n(8) SCC 412] in order to ascertain