APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

197 TDS not applicable Interest paid to Banks on cash credit limits 1,58,76,990 TDS not applicable (HDFC&SBI) Interest paid to government departments 30,022 TDS not applicable Interest on unsecured loans 37,72,317 TDS deducted Interest paid to others (below TDS limit) 5,887 TDS not applicable Total

SH. SWAPNIL AGARWAL,1, AGARWAL DHARAM KANTA, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER vs. ITO(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

197 dated 30.07.2019 that the revenue audit party has raised minor audit objection in this case that the assessee has 3 Sh. Swapnil Agarwal vs. ITO purchased a property for purchase consideration of Rs. 57,94,000/- but failed to deduct TDS @ 1% i.e. 57,940/- as per provision of section

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 filed by the appellant in Form 26Q (Refer page No. 188-241 of Paper Book). Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this aspect and has wrongly rejected the application of the Appellant. G. Because the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. AO, without considering the documents furnished by the Appellant during assessment and appeal proceedings has not given

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

197 (Delhi Trib.) held that\n\"Section 6, read with section 5, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nResidential status (Individual) - Assessment year 2011-12\nAssessee had shifted to Hong Kong for purpose of\nemployment and received salary in Hong Kong - Assessing\nOfficer made addition in respect of income earned by\nassessee from his foreign employer - Whether since\nassessee

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

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

ALL RAJASTHAN STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), WARD - 1, JAIPUR

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

section 148 issued by the ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur which are not according to the law and facts of the case. 4. The Ld AO had seriously erred by not giving the TDS Credit for Rs 53979.00. are not according to the law and facts of the case. 5. The appellant prays your honours indulgence to add, amend

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee – Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that it would be necessary to examine relevant provisions of State Sales Tax Act and Rules to know as to who would be entitled to refund – Accordingly, Tribunal remanded matter to Commissioner (Appeals) – However

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

TDS. Said payments were found to have been made to Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC). In the assessment order, said payments have been described as under:- S. No. Name of the NBFC Interest paid 1. Magma Ginance Corp 8519 2. City financial Finances Ltd. 842.76 3. HDB Finance 20329 Total 29690.76 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal In the assessment order, the Assessing

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

TDS. Said payments were found to have been made to Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC). In the assessment order, said payments have been described as under:- S. No. Name of the NBFC Interest paid 1. Magma Ginance Corp 8519 2. City financial Finances Ltd. 842.76 3. HDB Finance 20329 Total 29690.76 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal In the assessment order, the Assessing

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

TDS. Said payments were found to have been made to Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC). In the assessment order, said payments have been described as under:- S. No. Name of the NBFC Interest paid 1. Magma Ginance Corp 8519 2. City financial Finances Ltd. 842.76 3. HDB Finance 20329 Total 29690.76 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal In the assessment order, the Assessing

RAJENDRA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

Appeal is hereby dismissed

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

TDS. Said payments were found to have been made to Non Banking Finance Company (NBFC). In the assessment order, said payments have been described as under:- S. No. Name of the NBFC Interest paid 1. Magma Ginance Corp 8519 2. City financial Finances Ltd. 842.76 3. HDB Finance 20329 Total 29690.76 Sh. Rajendra Agarwal In the assessment order, the Assessing

SARAF EXPORTS,SARDARSHAHAR vs. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

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

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

TDS or amount of expenses at the end of the financial year. Therefore, the 8 Saraf Export vs. ACIT provision of Section 40(a) (ia) of I.T. Act is not applicable. Therefore the addition is illegal and against the law. Furthermore further without prejudice to above, it is submitted that the assessee paid the amount of exhibition charges