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)

3,00,09,181 arhatiya is not the on which TDS Turnover of assessee. made by certain Commission receipt buyers declared Total 2,33,862 In the present case the assessee has challaned the denial of TDS credit by CPC while processing the ITR filed by the assessee. Rule 37BA of Income Tax Rules 1962 envisages allowance of TDS credit

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

199 (Raj.) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that once the existence of creditor is proved and such person owns the credit, the assessee’s onus stand discharged and the assessee is not required to prove the source from which the creditor could have acquired the money deposited with him. Even otherwise, when the loan creditor

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

199 (Raj.) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that once the existence of creditor is proved and such person owns the credit, the assessee’s onus stand discharged and the assessee is not required to prove the source from which the creditor could have acquired the money deposited with him. Even otherwise, when the loan creditor

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

199 (Raj.) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that once the existence of creditor is proved and such person owns the credit, the assessee’s onus stand discharged and the assessee is not required to prove the source from which the creditor could have acquired the money deposited with him. Even otherwise, when the loan creditor

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

199 (Raj.) and submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that once the existence of creditor is proved and such person owns the credit, the assessee’s onus stand discharged and the assessee is not required to prove the source from which the creditor could have acquired the money deposited with him. Even otherwise, when the loan creditor

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 the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,13,22,611/- made on account

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

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

TDS relating to the rental income pertaining to the appellant. It would be appropriate to reproduce here the provisions of Section 199(1) as under:- ‘’[Credit for tax deducted – 199 (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Govt. shall be treated as payment of tax on behalf

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

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)

3,25,267.00 the Asssessee claimed TDS Rs. 8,77,903.00 the Ld. A.O. allowed Rs. 5,52,636.00 for this the Hon. CIT(A) have given clear direction in appeal No. 05/17-18 order dtd. 28.03.2019.” That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not deciding the issue & set aside for A.O. which is beyond the power

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

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 with Rule 37BA and the income tax return form. Sub-rule 3

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

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

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

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