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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

3 Pankaj Rastogi, Jaipur vs. CIT(A) NFAC 5. Before us, the ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee argued that there is no fault of the assessee. The department is raising demand along with the interest. Assessee has already substantiated his claim that the TDS has been deducted which has not been disputed

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

3. Similarly the Testing Charges were paid to non- resident for getting the samples/goods tested outside India and as such no income accrues or arises in India to non-resident in respect of payment of Testing Charges paid to non resident for getting the samples/goods tested outside India. The details and other evidences in respect Testing Charges were produced before

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

section 199 of the Act and Rule 378A (2) of Rules, both income and TDS are to be considered in the hands of the same person. It is an 3

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

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