M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H has also been deducted on Rs. 12,95,311/-. Therefore, considering these circumstances, AO made addition

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

TDS Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by treating "discount" offered by the Appellant to the Distributors as "commission" and thereby treating the Appellant as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) r. w. s. 194H

DCIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

TDS Officer under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act by treating "discount" offered by the Appellant to the Distributors as "commission" and thereby treating the Appellant as an "assessee in default" under section 201(1) r. w. s. 194H

JAI SINGH JADEJA,KOTA vs. ITO-WARD-2(1) KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

TDS u/s 194H of the Act in addition to section 194H for the commission paid to the assessee and, therefore

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

TDS under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 11 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company In order to bring clarity, it is imperative to go into the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The provision of the section is as follows: 40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in sections

SHRI RAHUL SINGHAL,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on payment of Rs. 16,00,697/- as per provisions of section 194H. Therefore, as per provisions of section

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)

section 1941, not 1940", notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is a Kachha Adhatiya (Commission Agent) and registered with Baran- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, accordingly shown Adat/Commission as gross receipt in the return of income and consequently erred in confirming disallowance of credit of TDS, u/s 194H

NIRANJAN LAL,KISHANGARH BASS vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ALWAR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H and 1940. With regard to TDS u/s 194H, total credits for the year was Rs.19,31,507/- and TDS

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

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, TONK

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

TDS as per the 3 Shri Manoj Kumar Jain vs. ITO provisions of Section 194H on behalf of the assessee

JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. JCIT, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.” Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Jcit, Bharatpur

TDS. Accordingly as per the Section 194H of the Act the assessee has failed to comply with the obligation to deduct

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194H 11.33% 26564759 12751084 Rent 273153222 194I 22.26% 61896520 2971032 Others 1368936161 194C 11.33% 155100467 74448224 Total 4065214831 510891043 218488400 As none of the expenditures was falling within the ambit of section 192 of the Act, therefore, the said decision of the Tribunal would not help the case of the revenue for the purpose of TDS

CHOCOPACK ENTERPRISES,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS has been deducted by the assessee for commission paid to the retailers either own account or through company under section 194H

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H on such brokerage paid was duly deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. Moreover, payment

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)

section 2(24)(x) of the Act 2. Perusal of the record also shows that one of the main reasons for selection of the case for complete scrutiny was "large outwards remittances by the assessee and to check as to whether appropriate 9 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT provisions of withdrawal have been complied with." This was basically for examining

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 194H. The Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Chocopack Enterprises vs. ITO (supra) has considered an identical issue in para 9 as under :- “9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material available on record. The assessee’s firm engaged in the business of distributorship of Idea recharge cards. The issue involved

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

TDS of Rs.1,25,000 was duly deducted\nunder section 194H. Since income from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited

AJMER AUTO AGENCIES,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

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

TDS Corresponding Section under income which deduction made Capital First Ltd. Rs. 2,098/- Rs. 20,970/- 194H TVS Motors