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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

142(1) dated 08.11.2019\n51-56\n13.\nCopy of reply submitted on 15.11.2019 in response to notice issued u/s\n142(1) of the Act.\n57-63\n14.\nCopy of assessment order dated 29.11.2019 for AY 2017-18\n64-76\n15.\nCopy of appeal memo against the order dated 29.11.2019\n77-79\n16.\nCopy of notice issued u/s 12AA

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)

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. 5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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)

142(1) along with questionnaire were issued on 03.11.2015 and duly served upon the assessee on 03.11.2015. The assessee is engaged in the hospitality business 3 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT running restaurants, bar and room rent services. On perusal of audit report and books of accounts produced by the assessee’s A/R on filed with the return

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

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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)

TDS amounting to Rs. 7,99,142/- debited to the Statement of P & L as an allowable business expenditure. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/- on account of deduction

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

TDS deducted. No details of office rent paid\nbalance amount of Rs.3,97,500/- furnished by the assessee.\n7.2 In this regard, it is submitted that rent has been paid by Head office, therefore\ninstead of cash, assessee has credited head office, which is evident from leger of\nrent enclosed. It is further submitted that rent ledger could

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

142(1) and notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 11.08.2017 which also remained unattended by the assessee. Further, a show cause letter was issued on 11.08.2017 but the same was also not responded. Finally, the AO holding that since the assessee did not comply with any of the notices issued during the assessment