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 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

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

8. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee when it is clear case of the assessee that there is contract, and it is bill of supply the provision of section 194C are not attracted. As regards the other obligations for TDS as there was room rent paid

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

8. Once the employee submits such LFC claim and self-declaration, the employer i.e., the assessee bank is required to take the same into 12 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) consideration while estimating his salary income. The question for consideration is what is the obligation cast on the assessee bank while considering such LFC which is claimed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. MAN MOHAN KRISHNA, ALWAR

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

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

TDS, on payments to contractors, having not been deducted as required u/s 194C of the Act. 12. The Assessing Officer observed in the penalty order that since the assessee had declared loss in the income tax return, it was a case calling for levy of penalty under sub-section (7) of Section 270A of the Act. 13. In the course

DRAWMET WIRES PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

TDS u/s 194 instead of DDT u/s 115 O. Therefore there are various factual mistake in the return of income as well as in the challan which shows that the assessee has inadvertently and due to inexperience staff has shown this amount in the return of income as dividend declared during the year under consideration. Once the assessee has produced

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

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

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.”

section, can not determine/change the nature of the transaction in the hands of trust. For example, the appellant has also deducted the TDS u/s 194JB for the payments due to Jaipur National University(JNU) which can not imply that JNU is not working for `Charitable Purposes’ u/s 2(15). ALLEGATION NO. 2 : As per Ld. CIT( E): “The applicant

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

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

8 Cantt Board Vs ITO (TDS) 11. Section 234E, the constitutional validity of which is challenged before us, was brought into the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1st July 2012. The said section reads as under : "G Levy of fee in certain cases 234E. Fee for default in furnishing statements.-(1) Without prejudice to the provisions

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

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

8]”. 4.3 Similar finding was also held in other cases relied upon by the assessee, which we do not intend to extract here. Suffice to say that on the facts of the case, there is no need to deduct tax at source in the above 17 cases and thus, there is no default committed by the assessee. Accordingly, disallowance under

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

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)

8,05,089/- u/s 1941A and Rs 5,45,66,086/- u/s 1941B. Thus, as per clause 34(a) total Rs 5,53,71,175/- was subjected to TDS u/s 1941A and 1941B. Hence it becomes apparent that the balance amount of Rs 3,20,28,825/- of rent was paid without TDS and thus 30% of this amount

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 199 talks of granting credit for tax deducted at source to the other person, who is lawfully taxable in respect of such income, we are satisfied that the source must also be allowed to him. The Tribunal held that the credit for deducted on 2.80,656 actually interest income of 37.42 lakh be allowed to the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

8) The later portion of sub-section (3) which follow the further proviso is a requirement which would arise at a much later point of time. Such requirement is that the person responsible for paying such sum to the sub-contractor has to furnish such particulars as prescribed. We may notice that under Rule 29D of the Rules, such declaration