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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C(1) in relation to payments to transporters, applies transporter and non-transporter contractees alike; (iv) under Sec. 194C(6), as it stood prior to the amendment in 2015, in order to get immunity from the obligation of TDS, filing

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

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

iii)(f) inter alia any undertaking or body, including a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 financed wholly by the Government. • “Commissioner of Income-tax (TDS)-1, Chandigarh v. Canara Bank [2017] 79 taxmann.com 342 (Punjab & Haryana)“: Section 194A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Deduction of tax at source - Interest other than interest on securities - Assessment year

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

2 to section 37(1) w.e.f. 01.04.2015. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of the authorities below qua this issue.” 3.12 We have also gone through the judgement of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of RSMM Limited (supra) which has been rendered in the peculiar facts of that case and thus

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded