M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

section 13(2) of the Act. Further no proper books of accounts were maintained by the assessee. TDS provisions have

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act and addition made by Id.AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions : 18 ITA No. 744/JP/2023 Narain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT S.No PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1. Copy

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 2(15) is amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. 01-04-2016. In this amendment, two conditions have been inserted for the case of GPU who are engaged in the activity in the nature of trade commerce and business. These are:- (a) Such activities are undertaken in the course of actual carrying out of such advancement

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS on selling commission payment of Rs. 2,11,07,351/-, on Exhibition expenses Rs. 15,70,429/- and on Testing Expenses Rs. 2,09,191/- to non-residents. As per section

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS provisions have not been complied properly, therefore the trust was not eligible

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)

sections – 194A and 194H are fully declared in ITR i.e. either with same or higher amount than that appearing in Form 26AS, the entire TDS claimed u/s 194A and 194H deserves to be fully allowed. Hence the proportionate TDS disallowed to the extent of ₹1,79,551/- (₹2

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

section 56C(2)(viii) of the Act. Ld. DR also submitted that the assessee received interest on which TDS has also

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

TDS deducted as per provision of section 194IA has not been placed on record even though as contended by the ld. DR. In the light of the facts so discussed the ld. AR of the assessee failed to convince that the agreement dated 10.04.2015 relates to the same property and therefore, provision of section 56(2

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS) as required by sub-section (2) of section 197A - Accordingly, Assessing Officer invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

2), inter alia, provides that in\nrespect of income chargeable under sub-section (1), income-tax shall be\ndeducted at source where it is so deductible under any provision of the 1961\nAct which, inter alia, brings in the TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

2)(viii) of the Act. The case law cited by the\nId. DR was related to application of section 194A of the Act and\nthere is no dispute in this case the TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

TDS) (1) of section 272AA or section 272B or sub-section (1) of section 272BB or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (2

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

TDS. 6. That the A.O had cited CBDT's circular in this regard relied on explanation 2 to section 9(1))(vii)(b) of the Act and rejected

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee firm could not furnish the requisite information i.e. PAN of the 2 ACIT, Bharatpur Vs. M/s Arihant Trading Co. Pahari, Bharatpur transporter whose services it had availed along with the other applicable TDS

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

2,52,000 and office rent\n6,97,500]. Ld. AO asked for the copy of rent agreement which the assessee\ndid not produce but filed the copy of ledger account. From that details so\nfiled by the assessee Id. AO noted that assessee paid Rs.3,00,000 to Bela\nSharma after deducting TDS and since the assessee

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

TDS therefore as per provisions of section 195 read with section 40(a)(ia) the expenses of Rs. Rs.1,54,37,262/- on account of selling commission, Rs.17,91,586/- on account of exhibition expenses and Rs.88,410/- on account of testing expenses paid to non-residents cannot be allowed. Thus Rs.1,73,17,258/- are disallowed