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

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 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

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

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

section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act and addition made by Id.AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions : 18 ITA No. 744/JP/2023 Narain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT S.No PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1. Copy

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

Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS provisions have not been complied properly, therefore the trust was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s 11

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

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS and consequently no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is called for. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the provisions of section 197A(1A) has to be read in whole to understand the scheme of the said provision and therefore obtaining the declaration in Form No. 15G/15H will not serve the purpose and objects

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

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. We thus find that there is nothing specific which has been provided by CBDT in its circular issued under section 192 for the relevant financial year. What has been reiterated is adherence to the 14 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) provisions as contained in section 10(5) read with Rule 2B. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court

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

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

11. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. Section 195(1) provides that any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company or to a foreign company, any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

11,075\nTravelling expenses\n91,457\nVehicle maintenance exp\n3,32,268\nTotal\n13,09,053\nAppellant prays that disallowance was made and confirmed on presumption of\ninvolvement of personal element due to the nature of expenditure, however not\neven a single instance of personal expenses has been pointed out either by\nId.AO or Id.CIT(A) and thus the disallowance