STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

TDS) As fairly submitted by the assessee bank, while calculating the estimated tax liability of its employees, it always consider LFC claim as exempt under section 10(5) and the same position, being followed and accepted consistently in the past years, was followed in the current financial year as well. However, for the first time, after the survey

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS as per section 192 does not arise. This position is also recognized by the provisions of section 17(2)(vi) and explanation

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

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

17,56,560/- for financial year 2011-12 & Rs.40,49,97,468/- (till 27.02.2013) for the financial year 2012-13 was made to the Study Centres and the respondent assessee was deducting TDS U/s. 194C on payments made to these Study Centres whereas the assessee deductor was required to deduct TDS u/s. 194J of the I.T. Act on payments made

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

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

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS 10. TDS Demand 8020/- 8020 NIL (Double Addition) 10. Receipts not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee has preferred present appeal against the additions/disallowances sustained

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS 10. TDS Demand 8020/- 8020 NIL (Double Addition) 10. Receipts not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee has preferred present appeal against the additions/disallowances sustained

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

TDS) Tribunal at page 14 of the impugned judgment) removed all the doubts on this issue." (Emphasis supplied) 17. It would also be apposite to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case Sona Chandi Oal Committee v. State of Maharashtra [2005] 2 SCC 345 and which judgment has been referred to by the Calcutta High Court

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

section Field 26A Paper Up to & 201(1A) Assessing including 2016- and/or Officer 17 40(a)(ia) (TDS)[1] CPC-TDS

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

Section 120 read with 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, even though CPC has its separate and identifiable functions relating to TDS returns, the officers hold concurrent jurisdiction over such TDS matters with that of the Assessing officer, there cannot be any dispute that both administratively and functionally, the CPC of the Department is part of Income

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

Section 120 read with 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, even though CPC has its separate and identifiable functions relating to TDS returns, the officers hold concurrent jurisdiction over such TDS matters with that of the Assessing officer, there cannot be any dispute that both administratively and functionally, the CPC of the Department is part of Income

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)

17 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT 2. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) dt. 04.11.2019 raising 37 queries (PB 68- 71). At Point No.6, 31 and 34 of the notice the issue of TDS and deduction under Chapter VI-A was specifically raised. The same was complied by the assessee vide letter dt. 11.11.2019, 29.11.2019, 16.12.2019. The AO after considering

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS therefore as per provisions of section 195 read with section 40(a)(ia) the expenses of Rs. Rs.1,54,37,262/- on account of selling commission, Rs.17,91,586/- on account of exhibition expenses and Rs.88,410/- on account of testing expenses paid to non-residents cannot be allowed. Thus Rs.1,73,17

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

17 - 20 that the expression "said due date" used in clause A of proviso to unamended section refers to time specified in Section 139(1) of the Act. The amended Section 40 (a) (ia) expands and further liberalises the statute when it stipulates that deductions made in the first eleven months of the previous year but paid before

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 9(1)(vii) Explanation-2. He also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Bangalore ITAT in the case of Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO(TDS) order dated 16/3/2012 2012(20) ITR (Trib) 265 wherein payment made by State Load Dispatch Center (SLDC) is held not liable to be deducted TDS U/s 194J

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS deducted under section 194 H and 194Q and claimed in the return was allowable to the appellant. Further And in support thereof the ld. AR also relied upon circular number 452 dated 17