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 194-I of the Act and 30% of the balance amount of Rs.3,20,28,825/- on which no TDS was deducted u/s 194-I of the Act i.e. Rs.96,08,647/- should have been disallowed by AO by:- (a) not considering the basic threshold limit below which TDS is not deductible as provided u/s 194I

CREDAI RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(5), JAIPUR

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

TDS under section 194I (b) which appeared in 26AS of assessee for F.Y. 2016-17 which amount of rent being

RAHUL BHARGAVA PROP. KANDARP TRADERS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-5, JAIPUR

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

section 194C, 194I and 194J as per 26AS are Rs. 1,07,65,055/-. The AO asked the assessee as to why the income on account of undisclosed receipt or short receipt declared by the assessee should not be added to the total income of the assessee. In reply, the assessee contended that some of the TDS

JAIPUR CITY TRANSPORT SERVICES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

TDS under section 194I on lease charges expenses, audit fee expenses, internal audit fee expenses and in creating a illegal

JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Passing The Order.’’

194I on the advance recoverable from RSMML and to raise the demand of short deduction of TDS and interest thereon of Rs. 5,32,340/- and Rs. 42,587/- respectively totaling to Rs. 5,74,927/-. 2 M/s. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS ), Jaipur 2. The DCIT (TDS) has erred in law in not providing proper opportunity

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

194I of the Act. However, the assesse had only deducted TDS on an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/-. Thus, 30% of the remaining amount of Rs. 10,45,213/- i.e. Rs. 3,13,564/- was liable to disallowed and added back to the total income as per S. 40a(ia)(v) of the Act and the assessee

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS thereon. It was further submitted that the rent was paid to one of the directors of the assessee-company who was under the “highest tax slab” and in support, copy of his tax returns were submitted which ITA No. 434/JP/2018 Morani Motors Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-06, 16 M/s Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

M/S BARMER LIGMITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

M/S BARMER LIGMITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

194I of the IT Act, Taxi hire charges and other similar expenses attracting provisions u/s. 194C of the I.T.Act and salary expenses claim attracting relevant TDS provisions etc. as per 1.T.Act. With reference to these payments/expenses assessee company contended that the same are only in the nature of reimbursement of expenses incurred on behalf of assessee company

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

194I and 194J of the Act. Whereas assessee has shown the other source income at Rs. 27,28,256/- only and TDS has been claimed at Rs. 10,48,661/-. In this regard vide show cause notice dated 23.12.2016 43 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. assessee was asked to state its case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

194I and 194J of the Act. Whereas assessee has shown the other source income at Rs. 27,28,256/- only and TDS has been claimed at Rs. 10,48,661/-. In this regard vide show cause notice dated 23.12.2016 43 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. assessee was asked to state its case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

194I and 194J of the Act. Whereas assessee has shown the other source income at Rs. 27,28,256/- only and TDS has been claimed at Rs. 10,48,661/-. In this regard vide show cause notice dated 23.12.2016 43 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. assessee was asked to state its case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

194I and 194J of the Act. Whereas assessee has shown the other source income at Rs. 27,28,256/- only and TDS has been claimed at Rs. 10,48,661/-. In this regard vide show cause notice dated 23.12.2016 43 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. assessee was asked to state its case