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

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

139 cannot be considered - Held, yes - Whether concealment of income\nhas to be seen with reference to additional income brought to tax over and above\nincome returned by assessee in response to notice issued under section 153A and,\ntherefore, once returned income under section 153A is accepted by Assessing\nOfficer, it can neither be a case of concealment of income

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS was deducted on such income - Held, yes\n[Para 9] [In favour of assessee]\"\nWe therefore request you to kindly delete the Additions on Account\nof Salary of Rs. 29,86,963/- (HK$ 360000/-) received for services\nrendered in Hong Kong.\n3. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in\ntreating the Humble Appellant

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021\ncalling for filing of return of income for A.Y.2017-18.\nLd. AO noted that there was no response to the notice issued u/s\n148, a notice u/s 142(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 was issued on 29.06.2021\ncalling for filing

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021\ncalling for filing of return of income for A.Y.2017-18.\nLd. AO noted that there was no response to the notice issued u/s\n148, a notice u/s 142(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 was issued on 29.06.2021\ncalling for filing

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

139". Section 194C/3): No deduction shall be made under sub-section (1) or sub- section(2) from (1) the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited or paid to the account of or to the contractor or sub-contractor, if such sum does not 16 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company exceed twenty

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)

1) of section 139." It is thus submitted that amendment regarding allowability of expenses, where TDS paid at any time

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which\nhe was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142 or sub-section (2)\nof section 115WE or sub-section (2) of section 143 or after the completion of the\nassessment, whichever is earlier;\n(b) where he has made no such return, after

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

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

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS. 3.11 In these circumstances, there is no basis to conclude that income (which is commission in our case) is not taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee in these circumstances is liable to deduct tax at the time of credit of such income to the account of payee or at the time of payment whichever is earlier. Alternatively

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

139 taxmann.com 196\n(Mumbai - Trib.)[CLC - Page 56]\n"....Section 37(1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As\nper the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students.\n2.\nThe AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit\ncard bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of\nRs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged