INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

section 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act. Therefore the following the above decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T as discuss above in the assessee own case for A.Y.2009-10. The order passed in present case is also barred by limitation. Accordingly I quash the impugned order passed u/s 206C(6) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

section 206C(6)/206C(7) of the Act. Therefore the following the above decision of the Hon'ble I.T.A.T as discuss above in the assessee own case for A.Y.2009-10. The order passed in present case is also barred by limitation. Accordingly I quash the impugned order passed u/s 206C(6) and 206C(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This

SH. AMIT MANTRI,A-3-A, ANAJ MANDI, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS and issuing refund as against order u/s 143(1) dy. 12/08/2010 raising demand of Rs. 17,950/- cannot be entertained u/s 154(7) of the Act. 2 ITA 151/JP/2021 Sh. Amit Mantri Vs DCIT 2. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not considering the legal position that in the application filed

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)

154 of the Act. The same was rejected stating that the assessee has not correctly filled schedules in the return like BP/DEP/DOA/P&L/PART A-01 of the Income tax Return-ITR-4. Being aggrieved by the order of AO CPC, the assessee preferred appeal before NFAC Delhi but the same was rejected stating that assessee has not submitted any documentary

DRAWMET WIRES PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, both the assessee of the appeals are allowed

Section 154 of the I.T. Act on 27.02.2013 wherein the assessee claimed that no dividend has been paid in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The assessee claimed that dividend of Rs. 1,95,00,000/- has been paid in the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2011-12.The AO did not accept this contention

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

7 ITA 964/JP/2019_ Govt. Secondary School Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS to 31/07/2018. Thus, the implementation of such programme was the primary work and necessary in the public interest. He has further pointed out that during the relevant period, the work of TDS was under the charge of physical teacher (PTI), who was engaged in the school tournaments and sport activities

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS). Therefore, the question is that if such declaration is not filed to the prescribed authority within the prescribed time, can the liability of TCS be fastened on the assessee. This issue has since been decided by the various Courts and Tribunal where it is held that even if the declaration is not furnished in time, no liability u/s 206C

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

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.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

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.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

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.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

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.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

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.

154, 155 & 156/Ahd/2012 d) Ratan Kumar Sharma Vs DCIT ITA 797 & 798/Jaipur/2014 e) Vikram Goyal Vs DCIT ITA 174/Jaipur/2017 etc. f) Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturer PL Vs ACIT (686/Jaipur/2014) g) Prateek Kothari Vs ACIT (312/Jaipur/2015) 7.5 Considering the above, I am of the view that as the additions made by the A.O. are without any reference to the seized material, they

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

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal While Challenging Order Dated 22.02.2024, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Act"), Whereby Its Appeal Challenging Intimation, U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Dated 24.12.2020, Has Been Dismissed. 2

TDS of Rs. 14,30,745/- for the assessment year 2019- 20 was denied to the assessee, without affording any opportunity to the appellant of being heard. 6. When provisions of section 154 of the Act have been read together in Court, learned DR for the department has submitted that there is nothing in 4 ITA No. 534/JPR/2024 Current Infraprojects

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

Section 37 of the IT Act. Firstly, The DRs contentions are that the documentary proof wgich was submitted by the AR in his paper book at page number 8 relates to the expenses on account of Rental Expenses paid. Secondly, the Ld DR is questioning the Ledger Account 5 profession promotion Expenses, where the asessee has TDS commission for (refer

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

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database\".\n2. In the re-assessment order