ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

199 Taxman 255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259\n(Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement\nare as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the\nAct is further fortified from the various

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause why penalty u/s 271(1

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

TDS | 15,65,426 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.40,42,000/-\nRs.37,19,337/-\n\nAfter the order of Hon'ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to\nshow cause why penalty

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS deducted on the said interest as per section 199 of the IT Act, such income on account of interest assessable in the hands of assessee. Our submission: Rajasthan Urban Drinking Water Sewerage and Infrastructure Corpn Ltd. 1

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.

199, TDS credit of Rs.33,21,212/- claimed by the assessee is not allowable”. Thus, not taxing of income in the hands of the assessee trust will clearly be a violation of the provision of I.T Act, 1961. In view of above facts, contention of the assessee was not considered that assessee is not liable to pay taxes. Therefore

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 read with section 37BA of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of Rs. 2,17,777/-. So far as receipt of rent

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

199(1) of I.T. Act, TDS claim is allowable in proportion to income shown by you only. Thus the allowable TDS credit to you will be Rs. 12,027/- and the balance TDS claimed by you at Rs. 2,16,481/- is proposed to be disallowed.’’ Conclusively, the AO observed that as per provisions of Section

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

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

1,79,551/- being incorrect and bad in law may please be directed to be allowed and the assessee prays accordingly. As regards the balance TDS credit of ₹ 30,009/- being TDS u/s 194Q, the assessee humbly submits that the same also deserves to be fully allowed as: 5 KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, KOTA Fact that assessee

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 704 2 Copy of balance sheet and annexure of loans & advance of 705-706 AY 2010-11 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of 707-775 payment made to assessee. 4 Confirmation of loan given to assessee from books of accounts 776-783 of party

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 704 2 Copy of balance sheet and annexure of loans & advance of 705-706 AY 2010-11 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of 707-775 payment made to assessee. 4 Confirmation of loan given to assessee from books of accounts 776-783 of party

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 704 2 Copy of balance sheet and annexure of loans & advance of 705-706 AY 2010-11 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of 707-775 payment made to assessee. 4 Confirmation of loan given to assessee from books of accounts 776-783 of party

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

1 Copy of Ack. of ITR of AY 2010-11 704 2 Copy of balance sheet and annexure of loans & advance of 705-706 AY 2010-11 3 Copy of relevant page of bank statement showing the entry of 707-775 payment made to assessee. 4 Confirmation of loan given to assessee from books of accounts 776-783 of party

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons