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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,33,14,566/- made by Ld. AO u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by ignoring the submission

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,33,14,566/- made by Ld. AO u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by ignoring the submission

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,33,14,566/- made by Ld. AO u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in confirming the disallowance made by Ld. AO by ignoring the submission

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

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. The president of the trust Shri Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni has withdrawn huge amounts from the trust's account and utilized for personal benefit. Total amounting Rs.2,52,00,000/- withdrawn by the past president, out of this amounting Rs.1,08,00,000/- transferred in the account of Sh. Rajendra Gupta and remaining

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) is also attracted wherever TDS on payment of 7 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur commission to a non-resident has not been made at appropriate rates. These provisions bar deduction of any payment on account of commission [fee for technical services] made to a non-resident, without making TDS

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

145-\nB].]\"\nIt is pertinent to note that whereas amendment was made u/s\n56(2)(viii), as aforesaid, at the same time, admittedly no amendment\nhas been made till date and particularly in AY 2018-19 which is the\nsubject matter here in the provisions of section 10(37). It has to be\nappreciated that S.56(2)(viii

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

145 ITD 370 and submitted that the Tribunal 6 M/s. Danish Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. has held that for the purpose of deducting the tax at source under section 194A, if the assessee has obtained the Form No. 15G/15H, then as per the provisions of section 197A(1A), no disallowance is called for under section 40(a)(ia). The default

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

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

145(3), thus the action of Id. CIT(A) is most\narbitrary and consequent addition of Rs.40.00 lakhs made deserves to be\ndeleted.\n4\nITA No. 1522/JP/2024\nPradeep Sharma vs. ITO\n6.2\nThat the Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition by merely\nobserving that the cash deposited in the same period in the last year

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. The decisions relied by the AO are not applicable