VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.14,515/- had been made, in spite of the same being pointed out to him. He also ignored the bank statements of the assessee which substantiated the salary disclosed by the assessee. While confirming the addition, he laid emphasis on a trivial issue that the Form-16 issued by the Employer is unsigned. While dismissing the appeal

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act for more than 5 years.  Auditor’s remarks in Form 3CD were general in nature (stock register, valuation, TDS reconciliation) and did not indicate unreliability of accounts.The Statutory Auditor has given unmodified opined in the Audit reportfor the same year that Financial Statement of the assessee give a true and fair view

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)

section 195 of Act and DTAA between India and USA, the assessee company was under bona- fide belief that no tax is deductible on payments made to USA Companies against purchase of software. Reliance is placed on the following decision of Delhi Bench of Hon'ble Tribunal: Dy. CIT Vs. Jt. Secretary, Organising Committee for Winter Games

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section Transaction Date of Booking Amount (Rs.) TDS deducted Date (Rs.) 194C 17-08-2016 27-10-2016 59,630 1,193

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act for more\nthan 5 years.\nAuditor's remarks in Form 3CD were general in nature (stock register, valuation, TDS\nreconciliation) and did not indicate unreliability of accounts.The Statutory Auditor has\ngiven unmodified opined in the Audit reportfor the same year that Financial Statement of\nthe assessee give a true and fair view

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

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

SHRI SURESH KUMAR GOYAL, 501 UNIQUE SANGHI APARTMENT DURGAPURA JAIPUR-302018,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

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

193 (Delhi) (DPB 11-14 ) held as under: Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Commission)- Assessment year 1994-95 - Assessee paid commission to commission-agents on basis of sales - Assessing Officer disallowed commission payments on ground that parties related to directors of assessee were partners in firm which were agents of assessee

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

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

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)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 145. However, the appellant did not file sales register depicting that amount invoiced and amount actually received and offered to tax. The appellant filed copies of bank statement but from bank statement the invoices raised by the appellant cannot be correlated and it cannot be established that the alleged receipts are offered to tax. 5.7 In view

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

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

section 68 of the Act in the absence of contrary information. Likewise, there cannot be addition of one stem in the hands of two different persons 2.12 After having gone through the facts of the present case and after taking into consideration all the documents placed on record and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

TDS levied thereon was duly paid, do not need any further clarification and also not rebutted by lower authorities. Amount Appearing in Income & Amount Appearing In Income S Head Of Difference Expenditure Account of Audit Expenditure- (impounded No Account Report As on 31/03/2015 document) Page- 97, Annex- 8 5 2,79,876 1,76,193 1,03,683 Bank charges

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,SHRAWASTI vs. ITO, WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS which is verifiable from 26AS. 2.21 Reliance in this regard is placed decision of Harsh Washesher Chadha vs. ACIT Circle (Internatinal Taxation) [ITA No. 123/Del/2021] (ITAT, Delhi) Copy is placed on pages 193 to 198 of the Paper Book. 2.3 In view of the aforementioned arguments, it is most respectfully submitted that the section