SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1) of section 139 of the Act, no deduction u/s. 80IB can be allowed to the assessee. The contention of the assessee that the provisions of section 80AC is directory and not mandatory was examined by the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Dr. K. Balaraman (supra) and the Tribunal has conclusively held that the provisions of section 80AC

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

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

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

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

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

139, such sum shall be allowed as a deduction in computing the income of the previous year in which such tax has been paid.] Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-clause,— (A) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (B) "fees for technical services" shall have

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

The appeal stands allowed

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

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

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

139. However, no return of Income was furnished. 2. Audit Report was not furnished The assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s 11 will be available only if the accounts are audited and audit report "furnished along with the return

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

139(1) or in response to notice under section 142(1)(i). 271C : Failed to deduct tax at source, wholly or partly, under section 192 to 195 of Chapter XVII-2. 271D : Taken or accepted certain loans and deposited in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS. 271E Repaid any deposit specified in section 269T in contravention to its provisions

VENUS FOOTARTS LIMITED,NEEM KA THANA, SIKAR vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

TDS and TCS results into disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) which also provides that where in respect of any such sum, tax has been deducted in any subsequent year, or has been deducted during the previous year but paid after the due date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

TDS) (or the CPC) is mentioned in the aforesaid notification itself i.e. the A.O. should ensure that interest on non-deduction or failure in payment shall be paid before furnishing the statement in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8.4.3 It is not the case of appellant that it has already filed such certificate in form 26A with