MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

2 to section 195(1) of the IT Act which has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.62 is misplaced. The Modern Threads India Ltd, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Jaipur learned CIT(Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 195 of the IT Act. From the provisions

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

2 to section 195(1) of the IT Act which has been introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 1.4.62 is misplaced. The Modern Threads India Ltd, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Jaipur learned CIT(Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 195 of the IT Act. From the provisions

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

TDS provisions. 9 M/s Prime Oceanic Pvt. Ltd., Alwar Vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Alwar During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO asked the assessee about the applicability of the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) and further stated that section 195

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

TDS deduction. The Assessing Officer further held that the certificate under section 195(2) of the Act had also not been

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

195 Taxman 117 the Bombay High Court has held that "Explanation 3 does not and cannot override the necessity of fulfilling the conditions set out in the substantive part of section 147 An Explanation to a statutory provision is intended to explain its contents and cannot be construed to override or render the substance or core nugatory, Section

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

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

TDS is required to be deductable irrespective of facts that payment has been made to non-resident person would did not have place of business or business connection in India, in view of explanation 2 to section 195

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS merely because of the explanation to Section 195 of the Act as it is a prerequisite contention for invoking provisions of Section 195 of the Act that the payment is chargeable to tax in India in the hands of the recipient. Needless to say, the assessee be afforded an opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue. In the result

M/S. SATYAM POLYPLAST,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

2 Satyam Polyplast vs. DCIT AO accordingly, held that the provisions of Section 195(1) are applicable in all the cases whether the payment is made to non-resident without deduction of TDS

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS in compliance of provisions of section 195(1) of the Act. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the authorities below erred as regards said disallowance, same having been made contrary to the law and a decision already in favour of the appellant. In this regard, Ld. AR has relied on decision in ITA No. 60/JP/2019 dated

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs. 98,51,320/- u/s 195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was 10 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in instalments

SOCIAL WORK & RESEARCH CENTRE,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

2. The assessee made payments to various non-resident persons during the period April, to June, 2014 and deducted TDS under section 195

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

195 15% 169348804 81287425 Commission 234463891 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

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS of Rs. 98,51,320/- u/s 195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in installments and that cost was claimed

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, they were not liable to be taxed in India. Other relevant recent decisions that payment for software is not Royalty and therefore, "when no tax is chargeable under the Act" no TDS is required, are: (1) GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd Vs. CIT & Anr (2010) 327 ITR 456 (SC) (2

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

TDS. (e)The ld. AO has disallowed the income of Rs. 33,50,772/- (33,45,494/- +5,278/-) and also taxed the same @ Maximum Marginal Rate U/s 164(2). The Id. AO has alleged that the assessee trust is doing business activities in and not complying statutory provisions of the Act. Thus the AO has completed the assessment assessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned