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

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

1), being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Surrender during the search action:- It is important to note that during the course of search and seizure action the documents of the appellant were examined and from the same the data in the year wise calculation was prepared which is mentioned in the statement of the appellant

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

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

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

197(1A) if the deductee has given a declaration that his income including the receipt in question is not liable to tax as the total income would be nil, then the assessee is not supposed to deduct TDS on such payment. The ld. A/R has further contended that the order passed by the AO dated 29th March, 2016 is barred

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fluct under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence." The Court mentioned above in the definition of evidence would include

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

197-200) In the case it was held that Rule 8D(2)(ii) shall have no application where interest income earned outweigh interest expenditure. Thus making additions of Rs.2,53,26,820 as proposed in the order passed u/s 263 of I. Tax Act is highly unjustified. 2.6 The Source of all investments as standing in the balance sheet

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

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

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

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

197(1A). In the Note 12 of form 15G of the income tax rules, it has been clearly stated that: "The person responsible for paying the income referred to in column 16 of part I shall not accept the declaration where the amount of income of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT FACLESS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

197(1A). In the Note 12 of form 15G of the income tax rules, it has been clearly stated that: "The person responsible for paying the income referred to in column 16 of part I shall not accept the declaration where the amount of income of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

TDS qualifies for deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, other miscellaneous income comprising of site plan charges,lease agreement form, road cutting charges, penalty recovered from contractor etc. are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. This has been accepted by Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in not allowing the deduction

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

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

ASHOK KUMAR JAIN,KOTA vs. ITO WD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

TDS to the appellant after due\nverification. This ground of appeal raised by the appellant is thus allowed.\n7.1 The fourth ground of appeal raised by the appellant read as under:\n\"That the learned AO erred in facts and law by not allowing proper opportunity of being\nheard because as per provisions of Sec 148A of the Income

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