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

115-O; or ii. the second proviso to section 194B, then, such persons shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such persons failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid.” 4.6 It was further submitted that at the same time, Section 273B of the IT Act provides that in case

DRAWMET WIRES PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

TDS u/s 194 instead of DDT u/s 115 O. Therefore there are various factual mistake in the return of income as well as in the challan which shows that the assessee has inadvertently and due to inexperience staff has shown this amount in the return of income as dividend declared during the year under consideration. Once the assessee has produced

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

115-0. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, where any interest or other sum as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called "Interest payable account" or "Suspense account" or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income

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)

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

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)

115]C been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished: Provided that where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished on any issue is considered both under the provisions contained in section 11518 or section 1151C

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

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

115]C been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished:\nProvided that where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished on any issue is considered both under the provisions contained in section 11518 or section 1151C

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

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

115]C been reduced by\nthe amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or\ninaccurate particulars have been furnished:\nProvided that where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have\nbeen concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished on any issue is\nconsidered both under the provisions contained in section 11518 or section 1151C

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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 not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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 not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

TDS of Rs.1,25,000 was duly deducted\nunder section 194H. Since income from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited\nwas not received in the relevant AY 2023-24 but in next year i.e. was received in FY\n2023-24 and after calculating final income the assessee filed revised return on 25-12-\n2023 duly before the due date

RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

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

TDS. Further, it is not a case that the show-cause has been issued under section 201(1) and the final assessment order has been passed under section 201(1)/201(IA) of the Act. Rather, the AO has inadvertently made a mention of 201(1)/201(IA) in addition to section 206C(6)/206C

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

section 12A(1)(b) states that: [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply inrelation to the income of any trust or institution unless the followingconditions are fulfilled, namely:- (b)where the total income of the trust or institution as computedunder this Act without giving effect to [the provisions of section 11 andsection 12 exceeds

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, it is noted from the assessment order wherein the AO observed that assessee has made substantial investment in shares of group companies which as on 31.03.2016 stood at Rs.77,25,464/- whereas as on 01.04.2015 it stood at Rs.79.36,714/-. Accordingly, assessee vide show cause notice dated

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

TDS and\ndeposit of the same in Central Government Account, with documentary\nevidences.\nOn the basis of the above discussion and the facts of the case, I confirm\nthe addition made by the AO of Rs.24,69,600/- as brokerage on the\ntransactions mentioned on the pages of seized material Exhibit -5 at\npage no. 16 & 20 for the A.Y.2016-17

UMESH SABOO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly\nallowed

TDS and\ndeposit of the same in Central Government Account, with documentary\nevidences.\nOn the basis of the above discussion and the facts of the case, I confirm\nthe addition made by the AO of Rs.24,69,600/- as brokerage on the\ntransactions mentioned on the pages of seized material Exhibit -5 at\npage no. 16 & 20 for the A.Y.2016-17

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

115-O of\nthe Act.\n\n13\n\n14.\nAs is plainly evident from a reading of that provision, DDT is liable to be\npaid by the company which declares, distributes or pays the same. The petitioner\nherein was merely the recipient of the interest income and it was thus, clearly not\nthe entity which had either declared or paid

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

115 ITR 519 held that: "the plain natural construction of the language of section 57(iii) of the Act irresistibly leads to the conclusion that to bring a case within that section it is not necessary that any income should in fact have been earned as a result of the expenditure. What section 57(iii) of the Act requires

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.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory