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 return was filed delayed, due to which, the AO invoked the Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act. He further submitted that Section 194C(6) provides that no deduction (TDS) is required

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)

2 of assessment order. 3.5 There is no finding that even this additional income of Rs. 3.38 crore was concealed income recorded. Neither in the penalty order nor in the assessment order. 3.6 The allegation that had there not been a survey, the assessee would not have declared, is nothing more than a suspicion, more particularly, when the additional income

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)

c) as well as 13(1)(d) of the Act and held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. In the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the Hon’ble tribunal held that the AO denied the exemption u/s 11 by following the decision of the jurisdictional High 23 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE

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

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

2 of assessment order.\n3.5 There is no finding that even this additional income of Rs.3.38 crore was concealed income recorded. Neither in the penalty order nor in the assessment order.\n3.6 The allegation that had there not been a survey, the assessee would not have declared, is nothing more than a suspicion, more particularly, when the additional income

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

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

2 of assessment\norder.\n3.5\nThere is no finding that even this additional income of Rs.3.38 crore was\nconcealed income recorded. Neither in the penalty order nor in the assessment\norder.\n3.6 The allegation that had there not been a survey, the assessee would not\nhave declared, is nothing more than a suspicion, more particularly, when the\nadditional income

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)

13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which has reached finality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty levied

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

c) The provision of Section 12AA stipulates the following conditions for registration u/s 12AA of the I.T. Act. (i) The object of the Trust should be for charitable purpose. (ii) The activities of the Trust should be genuine. 5 M/s. Zila Paryawarn Sudhar Samiti, Jhunjhunu, vs CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur (d) Section 2(15) defines charitable purposes which makes it clear

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

c) of sub-section (2) of section 273, no penalty shall be impossible on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. “ 4.7 There is no definition of the term “reasonable cause

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

c) or business connection in India or (d) any other presence in any manner whatsoever in India. Thus, Explanation speaks of the payer only and not of the payee. 5.3 Alternatively and without prejudice, even assuming for a moment that Explanation 2 applies, the way the Id. AO interpreted yet however, on the factual matrix the conditions mentioned therein were

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

2), inter alia, provides that in\nrespect of income chargeable under sub-section (1), income-tax shall be\ndeducted at source where it is so deductible under any provision of the 1961\nAct which, inter alia, brings in the TDS provisions contained in Chapter XVII-\nB.\nIn fact, the scheme of tax deduction at source provides that the primary\nresponsibility

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)

2,09,560 – ₹30,009) i.e. TDS claimed u/s 194Q) is absolutely unjustified and incorrect which deserves to be allowed to the assessee. Therefore, disallowance of TDS to the extent of ₹ 1,79,551/- being incorrect and bad in law may please be directed to be allowed and the assessee prays accordingly. As regards the balance TDS credit

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

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which has reached\nfinality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of\nclause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income\nin respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty\nlevied by the AO of Rs.72

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

c) Assessee had incurred following expenses for performing the activities during FY 2021-22: 6 Worldwelfare Health Federation vs. CIT (E) S. NO. HEAD OF EXPENSE AMOUNT (Rs.) Remarks 1. Audit Fees 15000.00 For Audit of Expenses 2. Bank Charges 175.82 Charged by bank 3. Clinical Trial Exp 967500.00 For Medical Research 4. Consultancy fees 12000.00 GST matters 5. Conv

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.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

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

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

C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 623/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15. cuke M/s. Danish Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, F-680, Sitapura Industrial Area, Circle-6, Vs. Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AABCD 0834 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj

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)

c). In so far as the case on hand, clause (a) of section 251(1) of the Act should be relevant, which states in an appeal against the order of assessment the Commissioner (Appeals) may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. On a reading of the Finance Act, 2001 (Circular No. 14 of2001) the Commissioner of Appeals