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

195(1) and the provisions of section 40(a)(i) therefore cannot be invoked in the instant case. Further, out of total commission payment of Rs 99,84,436, an amount of Rs 1,55,867/- has been paid to a resident entity on which TDS has already been done which is again out of the ambit of 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. 6. That the A.O had cited CBDT's circular in this regard relied on explanation 2 to section 9(1))(vii)(b) of the Act and rejected the assessee's claim, resulting in an addition of Rs.28,40,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5.3.2 It is important to note here that the Finance

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

195, hence the order passed under\nSection 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue.\n3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur\nvide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act,\nerred in remanding the ground of revision to the Assessing Officer\npassed by the Id. Assessing Officer on the issue relating

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 195 vs. Form No. 26-51 3CEB along with invoice and Form No. 15CA showing that no deduction u/s 195 is required to be made on certain amount reported in Form No. 3CEB. 6 Papers relating to commission payable to Directors 52-54 7 Details of party wise rent expenses as per financial statement 55 8 Copy of Balance

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

195 ITD 354 (Pune). 51. One important aspect also needs to be analyzed. Sub section (1) of Section 115JB has non-obstante clause. The said sub-section provides that in case of a company, if the income tax payable on total income as computed under the Income Tax Act is less than 18.5% of its book profit, then book profit

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

195 ITD 354 (Pune).\n51. One important aspect also needs to be analyzed. Sub section (1) of Section 115JB has non-obstante clause. The said sub-section provides that in case of a company, if the income tax payable on total income as computed under the Income Tax Act is less than 18.5% of its book profit, then book profit

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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

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) Anusha Investment

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

195 of\nIncome Tax Act.\n6\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\n(v) In regard to para 3.5 of show cause notice dated 15.02.2023\nthe assessee submitted that the assessee company is in appeal\nagainst the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) for AY 2016-17\nand the appeal is still pending for disposal

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)

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

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)

195 in the name of assessee. Assessee himself offered the Long Term Capital Loss in his own name and claimed the TDS. 1.10 Ld. CIT observed that the booking rights were in joint name with wife of assessee, the capital loss should have been assessed 1/2 in both the assessee and his wife. 1.11 Your honour as per guidelines issued

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

6,80,50,640/-. The so called unsecured loan was given by Account Payee cheques and also repaid by the assessee in the next financial year through banking channels. The recovery proceedings u/s. 226(3) initiated against Mukesh J. shah was also dropped by the A.O. Therefore the provisions of section 68 does not attract ofthe loan transactions between

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed