ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section 194-I; 12 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company (vi) "royalty" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vi) of subsection (1) of section 9; The provision of the Act is very clear that

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

TDS vide challanNo.48378 dated 20/03/2014 HDFC Bank\nThus, the peculiar feature of the case is that 90% of the sale consideration\nwas received within just five days of the agreement executed on 10/09/2008.\nThus, it is clear that the agreement to sell was executed on 10/09/2008\nwhereas the provisions of Section 43CA have become effective from\n01/04/2014, i.e. from assessment

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the\nCentral Government hereby notify with effect\nfrom the 19th July, 1969 the following banks\nfor the purposes of the said sub-clause :— 1.\n3. Allahabad Bank, 14, India\nExchange Place, Calcutta-1. 4. ************ 5.\n************** 6. Union Bank of India, 66/80,\nApollo

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

iii) The assessee has not taken care of any future liability of tax in the hands of nonresidence, if any arises. 3.9 Here, it would proper to examine the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which are cited as under: "Income deemed ………………………………………………………… by him. 3.10 This being the stated position and the factum

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

iii) in section 56 (2) would not be applicable on same. 9 Krishan Pal Singh vs. ITO 2. [2018] 96 taxmann.com 541 (Bangalore – Trib.) \ [2018] 172 ITD 332 (Bangalore – Trib.) [20-07-2018] In re : Income Tax Officer Vs Sangappa S. Kudarikannur : (See Par 14) : Interest awarded to assessee U/s 28 of Land Acquisition act 1894 on enhanced compensation paid

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)

iii) If the Tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court is inclined to take another view of the matter. (iv) The Tribunal had acted in gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning

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

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

iii) of the Act should be given a narrow and constricted meaning not warranted by the language of the section and, in fact, contrary to such language." In view of above, it is submitted that interest expenditure incurred by assessee during the course of business deserves to be allowed as claimed. Grounds of Appeal No. 4 & 4.1: In these grounds

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

iii)\nThe assessee's claim that no direct or indirect cost is\nincurred in making such investments is not correct because such\ninvestment decisions are complex and need day to day\nmanagement/monitoring, hence, the assessee cannot say that no\nexpenses have been incurred by it for the same.\n(iv) Under sub-section (2) of section 14A the Assessing Officer

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

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

iii) An Agency Agreement between M/s Prime Oceanic and M/s Trans Coral FZE (UAE) which has been prepared is a mutual understanding of both the companies. The agreement was not registered by any government agency or authority, so it is not treated as authentic. The agreement is the mutual understanding for making business. (iv) No any evidences of specific service

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)

iii) Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of DCIT Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/s. AU Financiers India Ltd. 2016 (11) TMI 710 - ITAT Jaipur. In this case Hon’ble ITAT has followed its own finding in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12. The relevant findings as reproduced in the order are as under :- “The above finding

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

14. In our opinion,\nthese observations have to be understood in the light of the facts before the\nSupreme Court in the case of Thanthi Trust (supra), wherein the trust carried\non the business of a newspaper and that business itself was held under trust.\nThe charitable object of the trust was the imparting of education which falls\nu/s. 2