CURRENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BASANT VIHAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR , BABA SIDHNATH BAHWAN

TDS of Rs. 14,30,745/- for the assessment year 2019-\n20 was denied to the assessee, without affording any opportunity to the\nappellant of being heard.\n6. When provisions of section

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

TDS u/s 195 of\nIncome Tax Act.\n6\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\n(v) In regard to para 3.5 of show cause notice dated 15.02.2023\nthe assessee submitted that the assessee company is in appeal\nagainst the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2016-17\nand the appeal is still pending

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 :

TDS demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

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 :

TDS demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

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 :

TDS demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

14,84,874/- whereas gross receipt as per Form 26AS is Rs.43,29,087/-. Out of this amount, TDS under section

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS of not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance tax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present case, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption that that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate the capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

TDS), Kanpur v. Canara Bank [2018] 95\ntaxmann.com 81 (SC):\nThis Court having already laid down in Dalco Engg. (P.) Ltd. case\n(supra) that establishment of various financial corporations under State\nFinancial Corporation Act, 1951 is establishment of a Corporation by an\nAct or under an Act. We are of the view that the above ratio fully covers\nthe

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: AO on 12-04-2021 18. Reply filed before AO on 15-07-2021 19. Additional Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 on 11-11-2024 20. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2014-15 21. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2015-16 on 10-10-2024 22. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2016-17 on 10-10-2024 23. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2017-18 on 15-10-2024 24. Written Submissions filed before CIT(A) for AY 2018-19 on 15-10-2024 25.

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JODHPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 36(1)(va). (b) appreciating that the employee contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs.2,14,97,991/- was paid by the assessee within the grace period as extended by EPFO Circular issued vide No. WSU/9(1) 2013/ Settlement/35631 dt. 08.01.2016. (c) considering that the payment of PF for the month of March of Rs.44,73,579/- was deposited

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O &M) PUSHKAR, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

14. In the present case, we find that the ld CIT(A) has nowhere stated in his order that provisions of section 234E are not constitutional valid and hence, he is deleting the fee u/s 234E of the Act. He has merely referred to the submission of the assessee where the latter has stated that an SLP has been admitted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M), SIKAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed on account of low tax

14. In the present case, we find that the ld CIT(A) has nowhere stated in his order that provisions of section 234E are not constitutional valid and hence, he is deleting the fee u/s 234E of the Act. He has merely referred to the submission of the assessee where the latter has stated that an SLP has been admitted

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)

14. In view of provisions of section 5(2) of the Act, amount of commission paid to a non resident outside India for the services rendered outside India will not fall in the category of income, and as such would not be chargeable to tax. So, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS