DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

192 ITR 615 which dealt with the said voluntary contribution 11 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-JAIPUR VS NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI made for a charitable purpose. The Bombay High Court held that for being eligible for exemption, the donations must be of capital nature that cannot be applied for charitable or religious purposes. It is the income thereof that must

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

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

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

192 CTR (SC) 492 : (2005) 1 SCC 625 (III) MP Oil Extraction vs. State of MP (1997) 7 SCC 592 17. The receipts which are not taxable cannot bring to tax under any other section. [ CIT vs. D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. (2005) 193 CTR (SC) 578 : (2005) 273 ITR 1 (SC) ]. 18. In the newly inserted s. 115JC

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 in the case of kutcha aaratiya. Therefore keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and also the decision of the co-ordinate bench of ITAT Jaipur bench, I direct the AO to allow the TDS claimed under section 194Q

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

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-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

1. Surprisingly,the contention/stand of the AO here is highly contradictory. If what is contended (i.e. the AO got the seized record on 03.03.2022), is taken to be legally correct, the necessary consequence/implication shall be that the assessment year 2014-15 (and AY 2015-16) shall be completely beyond its jurisdiction u/s. 153A and u/s 153C, which provides that

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

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

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1 of F.Y. 9 ITA 964/JP/2019_ Govt. Secondary School Vs ACIT, CPC-TDS 2017-18 as the assessee filed the said statement only on 14/06/2018 as against the due date of 31/07/2017. The TDS statement filed by the assessee on 14/06/2018 was processed by the A.O. on 19/06/2018 and an intimation U/s 200A of the Act was issued whereby

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

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

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

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