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

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

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the AO has briefly stated relevant facts and some of excerpts are reproduced as under:- "13. Non deduction of TDS: From the discrepancies mentioned by the Auditor at pointed at serial No. 6 of the audit report (From No. 10B) that the assessee trust has not deducted TDS or short TDS was deducted

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

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

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

13,72,050 2. M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2,83,18,907 3. M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 1,30,00,000 Total 6,26,90,957 In this regard, at the outset it is submitted that the search in the case of alleged Praveen Jain &Bhanwar Lal Jain group, was conducted on October, 2013, whereas captioned purchase bills

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

13,72,050 2. M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 2,83,18,907 3. M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 1,30,00,000 Total 6,26,90,957 In this regard, at the outset it is submitted that the search in the case of alleged Praveen Jain &Bhanwar Lal Jain group, was conducted on October, 2013, whereas captioned purchase bills

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS, filing of PAN of the Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and (vi) If the assessee

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

13,14,23,20,24,28,30,31,33,35,36,45,49,50,60,6 5,66,67,75,76,79,80,81,93, the Assessee has given no reply or explanation. ii) For entries numbered 68,69,70,71,72,73,74,85,86,87,88 which pertain to illegal payments made by the assessee during the relevant

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

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)

3,00,09,181 arhatiya is not the on which TDS Turnover of assessee. made by certain Commission receipt buyers declared Total 2,33,862 In the present case the assessee has challaned the denial of TDS credit by CPC while processing the ITR filed by the assessee. Rule 37BA of Income Tax Rules 1962 envisages allowance of TDS credit

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

13 and considering the provisions of section 201 as amended by Finance Act, 2014 and the Statement and Object while amending section 201, as referred to hereinabove, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 15. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

13-14 are not sustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be deleted. We order accordingly. Now on merits : Ground No. 3 to 5 : 7. On merits of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, the AO made the addition of the entire amount of unsecured loans received from 5 (five) persons and partners’ capital from

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

13-14 are not sustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be deleted. We order accordingly. Now on merits : Ground No. 3 to 5 : 7. On merits of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, the AO made the addition of the entire amount of unsecured loans received from 5 (five) persons and partners’ capital from

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

13-14 are not sustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be deleted. We order accordingly. Now on merits : Ground No. 3 to 5 : 7. On merits of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, the AO made the addition of the entire amount of unsecured loans received from 5 (five) persons and partners’ capital from

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

13-14 are not sustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be deleted. We order accordingly. Now on merits : Ground No. 3 to 5 : 7. On merits of the addition made under section 68 of the IT Act, the AO made the addition of the entire amount of unsecured loans received from 5 (five) persons and partners’ capital from

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

13,72,500/- as on 31.3.2012 and free reserves of Rs. 21,41,92,402.26/- Thus having total net worth of Rs. 22,55,64,902.36 Twenty Two Crores Fifty Five Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Nine 16 Aman Exports International vs. DCIT Hundred Two and Paisa Thirty Six only out of which the company has given loan

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

13. In light of above, it is clear that based on nature and complexity of accounts, volume of loose papers, incriminating documents found during the course of survey and to identify and segregate the transactions from the incriminating documents impounded during the survey proceedings which were not ascertained from the regular books of account, special audit was referred

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission