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 was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS

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 was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS

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 was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section 194J of the IT Act, 1961 but no TDS

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)

194J of the Act and not see 1940. Appellant prays that such observation being absolutely incorrect, as the TDS for commission income earned is covered under sec 194H of the Act. Further due TDS us 194H of the Act is duly deducted by the buyers who have also deducted TDS on the purchase value by virtue of sec 1940. Appellant

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

section 194J but has claimed to have deducted only 1% TDS under section 194C of the Act. The second disallowance

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS LTU (supra). However, we find that the issue in the said case was not for deduction of tax at source under section 192 of the Act. The provisions were created by the assessee in the said case on account of Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. various expenditures and the particulars are reproduced by the Tribunal in para

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)

TDS ought to have been deducted u/s 194J and not 194Q, we fail to find any merit because section 194J

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

section, can not determine/change the nature of the transaction in the hands of trust. For example, the appellant has also deducted the TDS u/s 194JB for the payments due to Jaipur National University(JNU) which can not imply that JNU is not working for `Charitable Purposes’ u/s 2(15). ALLEGATION NO. 2 : As per Ld. CIT( E): “The applicant

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

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)

194J of the Act. However, the assesse had only deducted TDS on an amount of Rs. 1,76,23,934/-. Thus, 30% of the remaining amount of Rs. 1,43,91,971/- i.e. Rs. 43,17,591/- was liable to be disallowed as per provisions of S. 40a(ia)(ii) of the Act and the assessee has not furnished/provided single

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS on accrual basis i.e. as and when the invoice is received by them or the expenses is entered in their books of accounts as per the provisions of Section 194J

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

194J and 194C were applicable. In the present proceedings, the Authorized Representative stated that in the appellants own case for the assessment year 2011-12, the issue has been decided by the ITAT, Jaipur in ITA No. 818/JP/2014 dated 22.08.2016 wherein it was held as under:- “We have also gone through judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Ansal Plaza

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

194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in ExplanationIII to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of sub-section (1) of section 9; Commission or brokerage. 194H. Any person

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

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

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

PRINCIPAL SRI SATHYA SAI COLLEGE FOR WOMEN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee are allowed

Bench: : Shri Ramesh C.Sharmavk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No.684, 685 & 686/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Principal Sri Sathya Sai College For Women The Ito Vs. Sector 2, Jawahar Nagar, Tds-2 Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Jprp01273 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By :Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Shri Rajender Singh, Addl. Cit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2019 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19 /08/2019 Vkns'K@ Order Per Ramesh C. Sharma, Am These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against Three Different Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 15-03-2018 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 To 2014-15, In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 201(1)/201(1A) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2.1 The Common Ground Raised By The Assessee In All The Three Assessment Years Relate To Treating The Assessee In Default U/S 201(1)/

194J of the Act. The assessee is thus not in default and there is not merit in raising of demand under section 201(1) of the Act and charging of interest under section 201(1A) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus dismissed. 5 Principal Sri Sathya Sai College for Women Vs ITO, TDS

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny on 14.12.2017 and framed order on 28.12.2017. Contention of the Assessee: Assessee submitted that AO enquired on unsecured loans prior to 14.12.2017, whereas he got approval on 14.12.2017 and it is against the provision of the ACT. Held:That the assessing officer has exceeded his jurisdiction in enquiring

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

In the result, the addition so made by the AO is hereby set- aside

TDS as required u/s 194J, he disallowed Rs.64,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act and which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). 9. At the outset, the ld AR submitted that assessee has not claimed expenditure on payment of audit fees at Rs.64,000/-. It has made provision for audit fees at Rs.55,000 + 10.3% service