ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

124 of the Act and the notification issued by the Board. 20. Thus, in our opinion, the appeal has to succeed on ground nos. 1 and 2 alone. The appeal accordingly stands allowed as aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/01/2024.” In the matter of Bidi Supply Co. v. Union of India

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

124 Dhaka Ward 1(4), Nagar Opp, Platinum Upasana Jaipur Rosewood Sirsi Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAMHK2914H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri N. K. Agarwal, CA & Shri Manish, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date

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

section 143(3) passed by ITO, Ward-5 without issuing notice under\nsection 143(2) and only in pursuance with notice issued by ITO, Ward- 4,\nwho did not enjoy jurisdiction over assessee, was null and void.\nThe Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata the case of Jigna Chetan Mehta v. Assistant\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle-33, Kolkata decided

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of\nassessee]...”\n2.5. Thus, in view of the decisions set out hereinbefore, allowability of such interest\nexpense was one of the plausible views which was adopted by NFAC.\n2.6. It is a settled proposition that once a plausible view is adopted

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

TDS.\n(e)The ld. AO has disallowed the income of Rs. 33,50,772/- (33,45,494/-\n+5,278/-) and also taxed the same @ Maximum Marginal Rate U/s 164(2).\nThe Id. AO has alleged that the assessee trust is doing business activities in\nand not complying statutory provisions of the Act. Thus the AO has completed

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

TDS.\n(e)The ld. AO has disallowed the income of Rs.33,50,772/- (33,45,494/-\n+5,278/-) and also taxed the same @ Maximum Marginal Rate U/s 164(2).\nThe Id. AO has alleged that the assessee trust is doing business activities in\nand not complying statutory provisions of the Act.\n\nThus the AO has completed

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

124 (Cal) 8. CIT v Goal (JP) (HUF) (2001) 247 ITR 555 (Cal) 1.17 From the facts on record (PB 22-27), it is crystal that the order was passed by AO after full enquiries and therefore, the case is not falling within clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263. In view of the above factual

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

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

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 68 of the I.T. Act 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC) 124-128 E. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, which was necessary for the disposal of the case, when there was justified and reasonable cause for not producing the same before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O &M) PUSHKAR, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the application of provisions of Section 234E by the Assessing Officer (TDS) and/or CPC-TDS authority for levy of fee mandatorily on processing of eTDS statement(s) including correction statement(s) filed late by the assessee deductor after 01.06.2015 is invalid and ultra vires even on insertion

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M), SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

2. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and the law, the application of provisions of Section 234E by the Assessing Officer (TDS) and/or CPC-TDS authority for levy of fee mandatorily on processing of eTDS statement(s) including correction statement(s) filed late by the assessee deductor after 01.06.2015 is invalid and ultra vires even on insertion

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

2) and 10B(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 30.12. The ld. A/R of the assessee also submitted that the rates at which power is purchased by distribution companies from generation companies are the rates charged by generation companies to middlemen (i.e. B2B business models) which are governed by altogether different level of market and are therefore not comparable

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

section.\nAppellant prays reopening the assessment under the facts and\ncircumstances of the case and is not in accordance with law, thus\nconsequent order deserves to be quashed.\n2. On facts and circumstances of the matter the Id. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,342/-made by Id.AO on the basis of\nan excel

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

section 124(3) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee has not filed any return of income earlier and even no return of income has been filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act forgot about filing the return of income prescribed in notice u/s 148 of the Act. Therefore, in such facts and circumstances

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 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause why penalty

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 195 of Act, they were not liable to be taxed in India. Other relevant recent decisions that payment for software is not Royalty and therefore, "when no tax is chargeable under the Act" no TDS is required, are: (1) GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2) Anusha Investment