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

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

section\n271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by\nassessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in\nbalance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of\nassessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non-\ndeposit of same with Government, Tribunal

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

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

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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)

TDS levied thereon was duly paid, do not need any further clarification and also not rebutted by lower authorities. Amount Appearing in Income & Amount Appearing In Income S Head Of Difference Expenditure Account of Audit Expenditure- (impounded No Account Report As on 31/03/2015 document) Page- 97, Annex- 8 5 2,79,876 1,76,193 1,03,683 Bank charges

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 or any higher authority of the Department. Whereas the matter in the instant appeal pertains to FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. As per proviso to section 133A, no action under sub-section (1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 39 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT the course of search and seizure under section

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

133A of the Act. Therefore, even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing Kolkata is considered as a relevant evidence, the same cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment