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)

2,09,560 – ₹30,009) i.e. TDS claimed u/s 194Q) is absolutely unjustified and incorrect which deserves to be allowed to the assessee. Therefore, disallowance of TDS to the extent of ₹ 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

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)

199 (PB page 151-163). In the case it was held that where Assessing Officer during course of original assessment verified all transactions of purchase/sales/stock of shares in case of assessee and made disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D(2), Commissioner having failed to make out that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial

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.

2(15) of the I.T. Act. The Assessing Officer finding that the various income on which tax has 6. been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of assessee as discussed supra and ld. AO has observed that “TDS credit claimed by the assessee is allowable, if at any stage of appeal of any proceedings it has been held

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

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 of the Act and Rule 378A (2

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

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

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)

199 (All) held that reopening is justified where the AO failed to investigate adequately in the original assessment and new evidence emerges later. 3. Approval of the Principal Commissioner 3.1. The AO obtained the necessary approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax before issuing notice under Section 148. This procedural compliance aligns with the requirements of the Income

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

199 (All)\n26\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur\n- Reopening is justified when credible new information highlights tax\nevation.\nV. Prayer\nIn light of the above submissions, the Revenue respectfully prays that the Hon’ble\nTribunal may:\n1. Uphold the Validity of the Section 148 Notice\n- Recognize that the AO adhered

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

199 (All)\n\n26\nITA No. 872 & others/JP/2024\nKedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur\n• Reopening is justified when credible new information highlights tax\nevation.\n\nV. Prayer\nIn light of the above submissions, the Revenue respectfully prays that the Hon’ble\nTribunal may:\n\n1. Uphold the Validity of the Section 148 Notice\n• Recognize that

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

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

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

section 199 Sh. Marvel Support Consultancy Services, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur read with Rule 37BA even though payers had deducted TDS in financial year relevant to AY 2018-19. In view of above, AO be directed to allow the credit of TDS of Rs.8,52,736/- not allowed by him. Departmental Appeal Only Ground Whether under the facts

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

2. Restriction of TDS credit-\n4.2.1 In the return of income, the appellant had claimed TDS of Rs.2.02,12,215/-\nwhereas in the order u/s 143(1), the credit has been given of Rs.1:15.45 496\nThus, AO CPC had restricted the credit for TDS of Rs 86,66,719. The working of\nproportionate credit of TDS as per rule

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.”

2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred by ignoring the provisions of the Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which puts bar on raising the direct demand upon the assessee where tax has been deducted at source. 3. The appellant craves to add amend alter delete or modify any or all the grounds of appeal before

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS)—Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010—Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010— Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 into the Act – ABCAUS case law citation – 939 2016 (06) ITAT (June 2016) Inductotherm ndia Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Special Civil application No. 858 of 2006) (GUJ HC), it has been held that The assessing officerin the guise of power to reopen an assessment cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving enquiry and seek to verify claims