PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details the circumstances which Professional

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit\nfiled on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36\nhours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the\nauthorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender The affidavit filed by\nthe assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details the circumstances which\nled

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 131 was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. 01.10.1975. Therefore, when survey has been carried out u/s 133(A), there is pendency of proceedings and hence the AO can record statement on oath u/s 131(1) r.w.s 133A(3)(iii) in as much as such statement may be useful for or relevant to the survey proceedings

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) and/or\nunder Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on\n20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours\nindicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of\nthe appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee\non 20.05.2013 explained in minute

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. 4.3.1 The AO in the order passed relied on the statement recorded u/s 131 during the spot verification of the accounting officer (AAO) wherein he had not denied of the fact that TDS

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. 4.3.1 The AO in the order passed relied on the statement recorded u/s 131 during the spot verification of the accounting officer (AAO) wherein he had not denied of the fact that TDS

ITO(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. 4.3.1 The AO in the order passed relied on the statement recorded u/s 131 during the spot verification of the accounting officer (AAO) wherein he had not denied of the fact that TDS

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS provisions under section 194C are not applicable on payments made directly to casual labourers for wages. - Percentage of labour cost to gross receipts varies depending upon the nature of project, labour intensity, and stage of execution. Merely because the AO feels 13% is “high” does not justify disallowance, especially without benchmarking against comparable cases. Judicial Precedents:  Dharmendra Prasad More

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

131 to 142). (3) Hathway C. Net (P) Ltd. Vs. TRO (2018) 192 TTJ (Mumb 'F') 497 : Assessee in default- limitation for passing order under section 201(1) / 201 * (1A) . Show- cause notice having been issued on 23rd September 2003. Order passed u/s. 201(1) / 201 * (1A) on 28th March 2011 was barred by limitation. (P.B. pages

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NEHRU PALACE, TONK ROAD vs. ACIT, DCIT-TDS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS was done on 19.02.2014 and 22.03.2014. The spot verification order does not contain the section and approval details. Show cause notices (SCN) dated 16.12.2014 and 08.01.2015 were issued to the assessee for the FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Show Cause Notices do not contain any default amount. Thereafter the AO passed the assessment order on 19.02.2015 wherein

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

131, that he had infused\nfunds as share capital into various companies belonging to Shri Satish Chand Katta\nand that such money had been received by him, in cash, from Shri Satish Chand\nKatta. Based on this statement, the AO made additions in the hands of the assessee\nduring the assessment proceedings.\n22. Before us, it was submitted

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit\nfiled on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36\nhours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the\nauthorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by\nthe assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details the circumstances which\nled

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

131 or notices under section 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 to these\ncreditors. Law is clear that AO must attempt verification. In this case, the AO has\nnot conducted any independent verification by way of issuing summons or notices\nto the creditors to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness. Once the assessee\nhas submitted the names, confirmations and balances

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 40(a)(ia) was to bring those persons in the tax net, in whose case no TDS was deducted and who were not filing returns, though they are enjoying the taxable income, thus where the payee has already paid the due taxes on the payments on which no TDS is deducted by payer, there remained no reason to make

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.”

TDS Certificate at PB No. 80 to 81 ). 1.3.3 Further the JNU had submitted the reply to the letter issued by Ld. CIT( E) vide reply dated 28/04/2023 which has replied the queries raised by the revenue and provided the copy of agreement entered by them. (Please see PB No. 61 to 78 ) 1.3.4 Rent of the office premises: Allegation

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

131, that he had infused\nfunds as share capital into various companies belonging to Shri Satish Chand Katta\nand that such money had been received by him, in cash, from Shri Satish Chand\nKatta. Based on this statement, the AO made additions in the hands of the assessee\nduring the assessment proceedings.\n\n22. Before us, it was submitted

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS provisions. Pertinently thus, tax was already deducted/paid\ninitially.\n2.2 A notice u/s 133(6) dated 12.03.2018 (PB 2) was issued to the assessee\nwhereby, certain information in support of the deduction claimed u/s 80U was\nrequired from the assessee (but, there is no mention of deductions claimed u/s\n80CCF, 80D, 80DD and 80G etc.). However, the given notice