M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Against this order passed by ld.AO, assessee decided to file an appeal before CIT(A) wherein ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the rejection of the assessee’s books of accounts and invoking the provisions provided u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Act”). However

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

TDS has also been deducted as the same is chargeable to tax and therefore, it covers as per provisions of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145

MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

section 145(3) of I.T. Act. The fact that the assessee is maintaining books of accounts, the books of accounts are audited u/s 44AB of I.T. Act, the books of account were produced during the assessment proceedings and the contract receipts are reconciled with the TDS

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

145 (3). The addition of Rs. 1,41,34,476/- is therefore directed to be deleted. This ground of appeal is treated as allowed. 26. We have heard the ld DR and gone through the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the AO. In the instant case, the AO has rejected the books of accounts and estimated

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

145 & 146/JP/17 and S.A. No.04 & 05/JP/2017 State Bank of India, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, TDS, Jaipur assessee requiring to explain as to why TDS was not deducted on the amount of reimbursement of LFC. Since the said amount cannot be treated as exempt under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS on the same has been duly deducted: Pg Name of the party V. Date Weight (In Making rate per Total making no No. grams) gram (In Rs.) charges (In Rs.) 7 M/s Jagdish Prasad 157 23.03.2015 1080.520 80 86521 Kamal Kumar Soni 8 M/s Ganpati Ornaments 158 23.03.2015 1184.73 80 94778 2266.25 At the outset it is submitted that