ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

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

section 201(1A) of Rs.5,45,119/- totaling Rs. 62,85,019,/-. Later on the assessee was advised to file appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and accordingly the appeal 4 Zila Parisad vs. ITO TDS

RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS cell without appreciating the reasonable cause during COVID period i.e. situation beyond the control of the assessee. 6. In support of the assessee’s request for waiver of interest under section 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, it is respectfully submitted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), vide Circular No. 11/2017 dated 24th March 2017, issued

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS being deducted. 9. Your attention in this regard is also invited to Instruction No.2/2014 dated 26.2.2014 issued by the CBDT. From the perusal of the same, it would be observed that in para 3 of the Instruction, it has clearly been mentioned that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS being deducted. 9. Your attention in this regard is also invited to Instruction No.2/2014 dated 26.2.2014 issued by the CBDT. From the perusal of the same, it would be observed that in para 3 of the Instruction, it has clearly been mentioned that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section

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

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 along with a penal interest under section 13 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40a(ia). Recommendation. Section 40a(ia) should drawn/deleted and/or bring suitable amendments in the said act, to help assessee in losing genuine deduction on this account

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 194C of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Reliance in this connection is placed on the following case laws:- ITO Vs. Millan Dairy Foods (P) Ltd.(2005) 24 CCH 616 (Del.) (Trib.) The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of milk and milk products. It purchases, as packaging material, poly film, tins and containers from various

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS Rs.1,66,27,770/- Rs.1,66,27,770/- No of days 135 135 No of months as calculated by 4 months 15 days - taking period of 30 days in month No of months for calculation of Taken as 5 months by Taken as 6 months by interest considering part of considering the period the month as full from February

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS liability of Rs. 14,851/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 3,119/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 1,48,509/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS liability of Rs. 14,851/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 3,119/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 1,48,509/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS liability of Rs. 14,851/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 3,119/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 1,48,509/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section

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

TDS should have been deducted u/s 195. Since the so called service provider has been credited the amount from the freight commission of Rs.66,90,497/- received by the assessee company. Such as the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Further, CBDT’s Circular No.7/2009 dated

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

TDS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED @ 1% U/S 194IA TOTAL 10822354/- 962681/- 11785035/- 1.6 Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer ignored the genuine difficulties of the assessee and, held that assessee has failed in depositing the unused amount by 31/07/2016 in `Capital Gains Account Scheme’ 13 Indira Giri vs. ITO (CGAS) and considered the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs only as eligible

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

119 of the Income-\ntax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as \"the Act\"), has decided that no\ncommunication shall be issued by any income tax authority relating to assessment,\nappeals, orders, statutory or otherwise, exemptions, enquiry, investigation,\nverification of information, penalty, prosecution, rectification, approval etc. to the\nassessee or any other person, on or after

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person.” 8.2. In reaching such conclusion, I rely on the following judicial rulings: (i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS was required in these transactions. Thus, when all the transactions are duly recorded in the books of account there is no need by the PCIT to consider the same as unexplained sales promotion expenses. Considering the overall facts of the case bench noted that the scope of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 is very specific, limited and different from appellate

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS on payment of Rs. 1,04,35,000/- was also outside the scope of issue under limited scrutiny. The CBDT has issued instruction no. 15/2015 dated 29/12/2015 (CLPB 12 to 14), 05/2016 dated 14/07/2016 (CLPB 14 to 15) and dated 30/11/2017 (CLPB-49) on limited scrutiny matters. The crux of the instructions is summarized as under- i. The questionnaire

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.

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