MADAN LAL GUPTA ,RAMGANJ MANDI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

TDS deducted under Section 194Q as well as Section 194H.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": [ "194Q", "194H", "143(1)", "250", "37BA", "199

SAURYA URJA COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

TDS has been\nprovided in section 199 r.w.r.37BA Intact, rule 378A(3) specifically provides for\ngiving credit of TDS in the year

DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

TDS credit only to the tune of Rs.5,90,223/-, and accordingly, having regard to the fact that salary income was declared by the appellant, and in view of the provisions of section 199

PANKAJ RASTOGI,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A) NFAC, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

TDS made. 6. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and also admitted that there is no fault of the assessee as employer has not deducted tax but not paid to the credit of the Government and in accordance with the provisions of section 205 no recovery be made on the assessee. The credit should

JAI SINGH JADEJA,KOTA vs. ITO-WARD-2(1) KOTA, KOTA

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

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

TDS being a Kaccha Adhitya (Commission agent). In support, the appellant has filed a written synopsis which reads as under: “As per the provisions of section 199

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS certificate in the name of the other person. The proviso to Rule 37BA(2) is just a procedural aspect of giving effect to the mandate of section 199

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

TDS return. 4. It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly misconstrued the provision of section 199 read

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS credit claimed by the assessee is allowable, if at any stage of appeal of any proceedings it has been held that the aforesaid income is not taxable in the hands of the assessee, in that case according to specific provision of section 199

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 195 about 'sum chargeable' under provisions of Act - Held, yes [Para 20] [In favour of assessee]" 5.1.3 Also kindly refer Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 0148 (Mum) (DPB 1-7), CIT, Coimbatore Vs. Kikani Exports(p) Ltd. (2014) 49 66taxmann.com601(Madras) (DPB- 108-113) and CIT, Chennai Vs. Farida Leather Company (2016) 238 Taxman 473/66taxmann.com321 (Madras

SH. AMIT MANTRI,A-3-A, ANAJ MANDI, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS which is otherwise available to the assessee as per the provisions of Section 198 and 199 of the Act. The ld. AR has also

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted Provided that no interest shall

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

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

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

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

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)

199 Taxman 75 (Uttaranchal), pertained to Writ Petition filed challenging the Vires of the Section 115JB. The Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Hon’ble Courts in those case, did not examined the section 115JB(5), which otherwise also cannot be done in case of Writ Petition challenging the vires of the section itself. Hence it is humbly submitted that the aforesaid

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

section 36 (i)(iii). The assessee firm did not borrow any fresh money during the year and even have no opening borrowed money. Bank overdraft account is not borrowed money, because overdraft account is against the assessee own bank FDRs. It means bank overdraft is assesee own money taken out of FDR account temporarily. As and when the assessee needed