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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Section\n144 of the ITA. At the time of the hearing, the assessee company submitted at the\nbar that it did not wish to press Ground No. 1. Accordingly, the said ground of\nappeal is dismissed as not pressed.\nGROUND NO. 2:\n79. In relation to Ground No. 2, the assessee company submitted before us that\nthe entire addition

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGMITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGMITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section\n145(3). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of\nthe case. Relief may please be granted by accepting books of accounts.\n\n7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in, confirming the\naction of the ld. AO, in making addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

173 ITD 399. [12-10-2018]: In re : Income Tax Officer Vs Vinayak Hari Palled (See Para 13) IT: interest awarded on enhanced compensation paid by government for acquisition of agricultural land of assessee u/s 28 of Land Acquisition act would partake of character of compensation and would be eligible for exemption under section 10(37) 4. [2019] 104 taxmann.com

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S GUNESH INDIA PVT.LTD.JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

section 145 making addition under M/s Gunesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT different head. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on ground that no material was brought on record for estimating the income. The Tribunal and High Court upheld the order of CIT(A). 336 ITR 400 CIT v. Aero Club (Delhi) Best judgment assessment – Assessment should be on rational

M/S GANESH (INDIA)PVT.LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

section 145 making addition under M/s Gunesh (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT different head. The CIT(A) deleted the addition on ground that no material was brought on record for estimating the income. The Tribunal and High Court upheld the order of CIT(A). 336 ITR 400 CIT v. Aero Club (Delhi) Best judgment assessment – Assessment should be on rational

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

173 (Rajkot) (Trib.) Where books of account of assessee have not been rejected, onus is on AO to point out specific expenses which were not incurred in connection with business and thereafter he can make disallowance under provision of section 37 and as such there is no provision provided under Act empowering AO to make disallowance on adhoc basis despite

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

TDS on that. 15 Goldendunes Heights LLP,Jaipur In view of above discussion, it is concluded that the appellant has been able to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and genuineness of transaction with supporting proof and necessary explanation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO of Rs. 6,38,03,000 u/s 68 by treating the loan

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

TDS was deducted or not the nature of payment is\nrequired to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and thus, based\non the certificate of payment being placed on record stating that\nthe payment is as per provision of section 28 of the Land\nAcquisition Act we are of the considered we that the same is\ncovered

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive