MADAN LAL GUPTA ,RAMGANJ MANDI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

TDS deducted under Section 194Q as well as Section 194H.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "194Q", "194H", "143(1)", "250", "37BA", "199", "44AB

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

194H of the Act. But the assessee failed to made TDS thereon. Based on that observation the ld. AO concluded that the assessee gifted the chin, Kada, Gold & silver jewellery to various doctors or touts for soliciting admission in Nursing Home or Hospital which are completely prohibited as per CBDT’s circular no. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 and also

BHAGWATIKRIPA PAPER MILLS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

TDS deducted with that of the expenses booked by the assessee was raised. The ld. AO contended that the assessee vide Annexure E to column No. 34(a) of the tax audit reported that a sum of Rs. 5,75,477/- is amount of tax deducted under section 194H

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

194H on three air time provided to\ndistributors and under section 194J on roaming charges paid to other\nnetwork operators. These issues were different from the subject matter of\nreassessment order. The Delhi High Court held that the subject matter is\ndifferent since the Commissioner has found error in regular assessment\norder, hence limitation shall commence for regular assessment order

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

194H of the I.T. Act. Based on this information, the case was reopened under Section 147 with the approval of the Pr. CIT to reassess escaped income. A notice under Section 148 was issued on 08/05/2020, but the company did not file its return in response. Subsequently, notices under Section 142(1) were issued on 01/02/2021, 05/10/2021, and 09/12/2021, asking

SHRI SURENDRA GAJRAJ ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1018/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cuke Surendra Gajraj, I.T.O., F-132 C, Road No. 12, Vki Area, Vs. Ward- 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abypg 2156 Q Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 194H. That we have already submitted Copy of ITR & Copy of Computation of Total Income of Shri Vikram Singh Kulhari, Shri Rameshwar Singh & M/s. Surendra Gajraj HUF told AO. It would be observed that the said person have surrendered the income of Commission & paid the due taxes. Thus Double Taxation cannot be levied (kindly Refer Page

M/S BHAGIRATH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR

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

TDS has also been deducted @ 10% u/s 194H treating the same as commission or brokerage. (iii) Complete books of accounts have not been produced and expenses are mainly incurred in cash. (iv) The assessee has paid rent of Rs.1,50,000/- for a small premises to Sh. R.K. Sharma who is having substantial interest. Further, he is in receipt

SANGA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 7,, 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)

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Sanga Automobiles (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 249 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation

MAHESH CHAND GOYAL,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmahesh Chand Goyal, H-6, Rishi Trading Co., Newanaj Mandi, Alwar 301001 Pan No.:Abtpg9841M ...... Appellant Vs.

TDS u/s. 194Q. 4 The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. The grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 09.11.2022 declaring total income

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

section 64(1A). (iv) Ld. AO as well CIT(A) has stressed upon the fact that TDS has been deducted on the income on which tax was deducted at source by Eve Miracle Jewels Limited u/s 194H