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)

13 of 2021 wherein it has been stated as under:- “To remove difficulty, it is clarified that the provisions of section 194Q of the Act shall not apply on purchase of goods from a person, being a seller, who as a person is exempt from income tax under the Act (like person exempt under section 10) or under any other

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

13,853/- [30% of 4,80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. TDS

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] for the assessment year 2021-22. That order of assessment was passed after 2 Infoobjects Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT considering the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short “DRP’] passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 27.09.2024. 2. In this appeal, the assessee

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

Section 10 subject, however, to the conditions prescribed in rule 2B of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. 13 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS

BPS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, SIKAR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 6. It may be mentioned here that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also denied to the assessee deduction of depreciation of capital asset on the ground that the assessee had taken benefit of capital expenditure as application of income in the earlier years. BPS Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar. 7. Feeling aggrieved

BPS SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH, SIKAR vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. 6. It may be mentioned here that in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer also denied to the assessee deduction of depreciation of capital asset on the ground that the assessee had taken benefit of capital expenditure as application of income in the earlier years. BPS Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar. 7. Feeling aggrieved

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

13,92,83,709, which was the total amount on which the TDS was deducted. • Interest paid to Foreign Banks amounting Rs. 52,11,831 on which TDS was not deducted based on the exemption provided under DTAA: Thes two foreign banks which are as follows: i). Το KFW (Germany) amounting to Rs.28,73,166: Exemption to deduct TDS

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

13[(c) the fee, if any, shall be computed in accordance with the provisions of section 234E; (d) the sum payable by, or the amount of refund due to, the deductor shall be determined after adjustment of the amount computed under clause (b) and clause (c) against any amount paid under section 200 or section 201 or section 234E

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, since these declarations were not verified by the AO, therefore, for this limited purpose we set aside the issue to the record of the AO to verify the correctness and genuineness of the declaration. Ground No. 3 is regarding an addition of Rs. 3,48,496/- on account of difference between receipts

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

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of conditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the trust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce and cater solely

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

TDS return/statements within the prescribed time in sub-section (3) of section 200. The fee prescribed is Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continues. Sub-section (2) further stipulates that the amount of fee referred to in sub-section (1) shall not exceed the amount of tax deductible or collectible as the case may be. 13

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.

section 161 to 164 of the Act. Accordingly, once the respective shares of the beneficiaries are found to be terminable, the income is required to be taxed in the hands of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries but certainly not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case. Accordingly, AO’s action

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

section 13(2) of the Act. Further no proper books of accounts were maintained by the assessee. TDS provisions have

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

VIRENDRA PRAKASH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

13) on 20.01.2025.\n\nb. In this final order, Id. AO assessed the entire Rs.55,00,000 alleged on-money in the\nhands of the assessee alone, rather than splitting it with the assessee's wife.\n\nc. In other words, the final order added the full amount of Rs.55 lakhs to the\nassessee's income (taxable as unexplained investment

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

section 201(1) of the Act. In view of the circular No.275/201/95 IT (B) dated 29.01.1997 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and more particularly

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