KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

192/ JPR/ 2024 dated 30-04-2024 wherein on the similar issue TDS claimed under section 194Q was fully allowed

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

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

TDS) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed

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

192 nor section 194J was attracted and ACIT, (TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu the hospital cannot be treated

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

TDS, Ajmer. Road, Ajmer-305001 TAN/PAN No. JDHS 06728 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None (One set W.S. filed) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri J.C. Kulhari (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 09/04/2018 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 10/04/2018 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: KUL BHARAT

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS statements as required U/s 200(3) of the Act, which reads as under: “Section 200- Duty of person deducting tax. [(3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred

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

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

SHRI AJAY MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS U/s 192 of the Act. The relevant part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal is as under: ITA 1041/JP/2018_ 5 Ajay Mathur Vs ITO “3.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and :-e submissions of the appellant, Based on information available with the Assessing Officer regarding receipts

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

TDS, Jaipur liabilityis not in accordance with the provisions of section 192 and the AO has been directed to compute

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

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground nos

TDS liabilities not in accordance with the provisions of section 192 and the AO has been directed to compute TDS

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194A was issued on 16.03.2016 and Order u/s 201/201A of the I.T. Act was passed on 29.03.2016. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings as well as order passed u/s 201/201A was time barred as the same was passed after a period of six years and 10 months after ending of financial year 2008-09 in which interest was paid