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

TDS.\nConsequences of failure to deduct or pay.\n201. 13[(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company, —\n(a)who is required to deduct any sum in accordance with the provisions of\nthis Act; or\n(b)referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192

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)

192 of the Act. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred by holding that the total rent of Rs.8,74,00,000/- paid during the year should have been subjected to TDS under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS liability was determined at Rs.59,11,080/-. That order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) considering his decision for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13 taken a view that the payment made does not fall in the ambit of the provision of section 194J of the Act and thereby the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS liability was determined at Rs.59,11,080/-. That order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) considering his decision for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13 taken a view that the payment made does not fall in the ambit of the provision of section 194J of the Act and thereby the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS liability was determined at Rs.59,11,080/-. That order was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) considering his decision for the assessment year 2009-10 to 2012-13 taken a view that the payment made does not fall in the ambit of the provision of section 194J of the Act and thereby the assessee

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

TDS and accordingly no tax was deducted in terms of section 194A. In support of claim, assessee had furnished certificate in form 26A from CA of M/s Religare Finvest Ltd., in accordance with proviso to section 201(1) r.w.s. rule 31ACB, certifying that the taxes in respect of interest income of Rs. 55,16,628/-were duly paid

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 March 86 where in it has been clarified that so far katcha artia is concern , the turnover does not include the sales affected on behalf

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS as per provision of section 192(IA) of the Act. So the amount received on which TDS was deducted

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

192 to 196D. In the instant case, disallowance is made on allegation of non compliance of provisions of section 195. Section 195 is reproduced here for the sake of convenience: 195. [(1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest [(not being interest referred to in section 194LB

DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS to the tune of Rs. 1,83,334/-due to the reason that the assessee failed to prove ownership of the land situated in Gram Ratanpura, Jaipur. In this regard, Learned CIT(A) considered the contents of the lease deed and copy of jamabandi produced in the appellate proceedings and arrived at the conclusion that the rent received

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

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. and Rs.14,74,943/- to M/s Future Capital another NBFC. The assessee firm raised loan 2 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT from said NBFCs

NIKHIL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalnikhil Sharma, 6, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur–302001. Pan No.: Bijps 2623B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-1(3), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

TDS from the payment gateway charges paid to the banks. [Para 12]” [2015] 53 taxmann.com 139 (Del.)CIT-II vs. JDS Apparels (P.) Ltd., Wherein the Hon’ble Court discussed the same issue very elaborately as under: “Section 194H would not be attracted in present case, as bank 'H' was not acting as an agent of the assessee. Once

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

192 under sub-section (1) of section 131 of the 1961 Apt. of a notice under\nsubsection Ay of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or\nunder sub section 1 of section 142 of 1961 Act was issued to produce, or cause\nto be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

192 TTJ (Mumb 'F') 497 : Assessee in default- limitation for passing order under section 201(1) / 201 * (1A) . Show- cause notice having been issued on 23rd September 2003. Order passed u/s. 201(1) / 201 * (1A) on 28th March 2011 was barred by limitation. (P.B. pages 143 to 156) (4) ITO Vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (2018) 196 TTI (JP) 232: TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS deductions, or banking transactions does not meet the\nthreshold for proving the genuineness of the claimed expenses. The appellant's\nfailure to provide primary supporting evidence, coupled with the non-compliance of\nsummoned parties, supports the AO's position that the genuineness of these\nexpenses remains unverified.\n2. Banking Channels for Transactions\nWhile the appellant has argued that conducting

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, it is noted from the assessment order wherein the AO observed that assessee has made substantial investment in shares of group companies which as on 31.03.2016 stood at Rs.77,25,464/- whereas as on 01.04.2015 it stood at Rs.79.36,714/-. Accordingly, assessee vide show cause notice dated

MILLENIUM BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands partly allowed with no 6

TDS), Kota of tax which has not been deducted under section 194-A from interest payment made to Hridaya Cooperative Credit Society and levying interest under section 201(1A). 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO of treating the appellant

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

192 to 195 of Chapter XVII-2. 271D : Taken or accepted certain loans and deposited in contravention of provisions of Section 269SS. 271E Repaid any deposit specified in section 269T in contravention to its provisions. 5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant