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.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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

14 lacs with the developer to year mark the said premises for Rs 70 lacs. Even if for the time being it is assumed that this agreement is merely a letter of intent, still amount mentioned in this so called letter of intent can't be changed by either of the party .At the max the parties involved

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

14-25)which is a detailed order, considering Explanation 2. In that case held as under. "Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident (Explanation 2 section 195)-Assessment year 2007-08-Whether where amounts are paid outside India to persons outside Indian territory, who does not have any tax liability

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

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

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. The president of the trust Shri Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni has withdrawn huge amounts from the trust's account and utilized for personal benefit. Total amounting Rs.2,52,00,000/- withdrawn by the past president, out of this amounting Rs.1,08,00,000/- transferred in the account of Sh. Rajendra Gupta and remaining

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)

14 Arvind Kumar Agrawal vs. PCIT cheque the case of the assessee falls under the exemption provided in section 56(2)(x) and the ld. AO has verified the issue the ld. PCIT cannot raise the same again so as to reverify the same and the contract of sale is formally entered into on 31.01.2018 so the stamp duty rate

SATBIR YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS credit of Rs. 4,467/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer held that since the original return was not furnished U/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), therefore, revised return is void ab initio. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold immovable property held in joint names located at Banbeerpur, Tehsil- Tijara

BALWANT YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed

TDS credit of Rs. 4,467/- was claimed. The Assessing Officer held that since the original return was not furnished U/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), therefore, revised return is void ab initio. During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold immovable property held in joint names located at Banbeerpur, Tehsil- Tijara

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

14 Krishan Pal Singh vs. ITO 1,27,13,420 claimed to have been exempt as per provision of section 10(37) of the Act or is chargeable to tax as per provision of section 56(2)(viii) of the Act. As is evident from the record that the assessee has received enhanced compensation as per provision of section

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. However, since these declarations were not verified by the AO, therefore, for this limited purpose we set aside the issue to the record of the AO to verify the correctness and genuineness of the declaration. Ground No. 3 is regarding an addition of Rs. 3,48,496/- on account of difference between receipts

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS claimed are reflecting in the Form 26AS of not, whether the assessee had actually paid any excess advance tax or not & the reasons for claiming the refund. In the present case, the AO completed the assessment on the sole presumption that that the assessee has made artificial arrangements to generate the capital loss and accordingly the claim of capital

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

14) of section 2;\n(ii) such land, during the period of two years immediately preceding the\ndate of transfer. was being used for agricultural purposes by such\nHindu undivided family or individual or a parent of his;\n(iii) such transfer is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law. or\na transfer the consideration for which is determined

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

14 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) provisions as contained in section 10(5) read with Rule 2B. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that an assessee employer is under no statutory obligation under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and/or the Rules to collect evidence to show that its employees had actually utilized the amount paid

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

14. In order to determine whether sum paid to M/s Trans Coral Shipping FZE is chargeable under the provisions of section 5 and section 9 of the Act, it is essential to examine the relationship between the two entities and the nature and characteristic of the amount so paid and credited to its account in the books of the assessee

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)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

14,37,81,491/- under the head “freight expenses” and the assessee was asked to explain whether it has done TDS on such payment. In its reply, the assessee referring to the provision of section 194C stated that it has not deducted TDS as provisions of section 194C(6) provides that no deduction is required to be made

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

14 of the Constitution; (d) that therefore the order was liable to be set aside and an injunction would be issued. In the matter of M. RamasamyAsari v. Second ITO (1964) 51 ITR 57 (Mad), the Division Bench has held (headnote): "In regard to the business income of an assessee it is only the Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over