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

section 11 to 13 of the Income\ntax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs. 33,50,772/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nsection 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed

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

Section 11 to 13 of the Income\ntax Act.\n4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities\ngrossly erred in making addition of Rs.33,50,772/- to the income of the\nassessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under\nSection 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed

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

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

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

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

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

BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL,KISHANGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n20/02/2024

8 of the\nCompanies Act, 2013 and also having approval u/s 12AB of the Income-tax Act for the period\nfrom AY 2022-23 to AY 2026-27. (Refer Paper Book No. 1, Page No. 28-30)\n2. That the company applied for provisional approval u/s 80G(5) of the Income Tax Act,\n1961 on dated

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

13.\nThe provisions of section 12AA(3) for cancellation/\nwithdrawal of registration granted to it with effect from 11-\n2-1998 under section 12A are not retrospective and\ntherefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner passed\nunder section 12AA(3) is nothing but a review of its earlier\norder which is impermissible in law.[Para 8.10]\nIn the instant case

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

TDS not eligible for deduction\nunder Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37.\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed.\nEach of such issues is now being taken up by us, in the ensuing paragraphs.\n2.5.1 Disallowance under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, of Rs. 23,31,312/-\n35\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED

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

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 194C. (4) Copy of Circular No. 715 dated 08.08.1995 8 to 10 (5) Copy of scheme under NREP and RLEGP schemes of government. (6) Copy of High Court order that “Forest Act” is not a “Trader”/”Industry” dated 16.08.2001” 11. The ld. AR in addition to the submission so made before ld. CIT(A) also relied upon the CBDT