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

In the result the appeal no

TDS Rs.22,23,578/-, TCS Rs.1,10,872/- and\nself assessment tax deposited on 31.03.2018 at Rs.16,60,000/-. The\nassessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act was completed by\nNFAC on 28.03.2022 wherein the\nincome was considered at Rs.\n1,10,04,980/- was assessed and thereby the interest was not correctly\ncalculated. The Id. AO rectified the mistake

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

In the result the appeal no

TDS Rs.22,23,578/-, TCS Rs.1,10,872/- and\nself assessment tax deposited on 31.03.2018 at Rs.16,60,000/-. The\nassessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act was completed by\nNFAC on 28.03.2022 wherein the\nincome was considered at Rs.\n1,10,04,980/- was assessed and thereby the interest was not correctly\ncalculated. The Id. AO rectified the mistake

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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)

5,21,67,086/-) - Disallowance of Profit on sale of fixed assets (Rs. 44,93,014/-) and profit on sale of investment Rs. 83,31,72,239/-) while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. - Excess levy on interest u/s 234C (Rs. 2,55,24,706/-) - Short Grant of TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

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

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

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

139(1) of the IT Act, 1961. However, the ld. CPC passed Intimation\nOrder under section 143(1) of the IT Act, 1961 on 31.01.2024 in not allowing the\nbenefit of the new tax regime and computing tax as per the old regime raised a\ndemand of Rs.82,920/- against the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the AO,\nthe

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

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

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

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

5. On the both the direction ld. AO has passed an order giving his comments and the reads as under: AO’s comments: The contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the assessee was in fact liable for TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. N Act, 1961 as this falls under contractual payment

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)

139(1), it shall be deemed that assessee has paid tax before the due date of filing Return of Income. It is further submitted the intention behind the insertion of provision of 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

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

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

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, thirty per cent of such sum shall be allowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

5) (I DPB-108-113). Hence the impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full." 2.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. Assessing Officer made disallowance of Rs. 2,28,86,971/- under section 15 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 40(a)(ia) being

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

139 (1), these cannot be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, 1961. Recently, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1184/JP/2018 vide order dated 08.03.2019 has allowed such expenditure following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT