GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARIA,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CPC) (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS statement, which can be inferred from the provisions of Sec. 204 of the Act Section 204 particularly states that "for the purposes of Sec. 190

RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

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

TDS certificate has been issued at first place. If we look at the provisions of section 206C read with section 190

SHRI KAMAL TAK,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-3, AJMER

In the result appeal so filed by the assessee is disposed off with aforesaid directions

TDS certificate has been issued at first place. If we look at the provisions of section 206C read with section 190

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

190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section 2(24)(x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied

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

190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section 2(24)(x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied

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

190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section 2(24)(x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied

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

190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section 2(24)(x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS made had to be refunded to the assessee. The Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has held as under:- “4.3 We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In our view the issue involved in the present appeal had already been adjudicated in the matter of CIT vs. Relcom (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 190 (Delhi) wherein

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

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

190 & 191/JP/2019 for A.Ys 2009- 10 & 2014-15 dated 04.11.2019 and our reference was drawn to the relevant findings of the Tribunal which are contained at paras 9 to 12 of its order which read as under. “9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The limited issue under consideration is whether the Assessing

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M) AVVNL,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS statement, which can be inferred from the provisions of Sec. 204 of the Act Section 204 particularly states that “for the purposes of Sec. 190

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M) AVVNL,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS statement, which can be inferred from the provisions of Sec. 204 of the Act Section 204 particularly states that “for the purposes of Sec. 190

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

TDS), Ajmer.\n3.\n4.\n5.\n6.\nआयकर आयुक्त / CIT\nआयकर आयुक्त / CIT(A)\nविभागीय प्रतिनिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर/DR, ITAT, Jaipur.\nगार्ड फाईल / Guard File {ITA No. 173/JPRR/2025}\nआदेशानुसार / By order,\nसहायक पंजीकार / Asst. Registrar", "summary": { "facts": "The assessee, State Bank of India, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning assessment year

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

190 ITD 450 (Kolkata - Trib.).](APB 84 to 89) Where assessee purchased a property and made part payment of sale consideration by cheque on very next day of execution of purchase agreement and registry was done after a year, since such part payment made by cheque on very next day of execution of agreement was towards fulfilment of terms

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

section 36 (i)(iii). The assessee firm did not borrow any fresh money during the year and even have no opening borrowed money. Bank overdraft account is not borrowed money, because overdraft account is against the assessee own bank FDRs. It means bank overdraft is assesee own money taken out of FDR account temporarily. As and when the assessee needed

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed