SHRI GOVIND SWAROOP GARG,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, remaining advances to the tune of Rs 32.45 lacs will be considered for determining deemed dividend. The AO has determined the accumulated profits at Rs 28.35 lacs of M/s Raj Auto Wheels Private Limited which has not been disputed by the assessee. The lower of the two i.e, Rs 28.35 lacs

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.”

22 ITA 688/JP/2019_ M/s Wholesale Cloth Merchant Association Vs Pr.CIT 12A. (1) The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply in relation to the income of any trust or institution unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:— (a) …… (aa) ….. (ab) …….. (b) where the total income of the trust or institution as computed under this Act without giving

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

22 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur or section 194LD or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head" Salaries") shall at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash

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

22 plots has not been taken in books. The ld. AO stated that Shri Tejendra Pal Singh has taken loan & advances of Rs.31,50,000/- from the trust and violated the provisions of Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS

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

The appeal stands allowed

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

22-11-2019] In re : Smt Lakshmamma Vs Income Tax Officer (See Para 16,17) Income tax: interest received on enhanced compensation u/s 28 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 is eligible for exemption under section 10(37) 6. [2018] 95 taxmann.com 106 (Bangalore –Trib.) [01-06-2018] In re : I T O Vs Basavaraj M Kudarikannur (See Para

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)(x) should have

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

22,731/- (Rs.96,133/- and Rs.26,598/-) under section\n201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 on the assesseedeductor bank, vide his order\ndated 20.11.2018. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal\nto the ld. CIT (A). During the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) fixed the case\nfor hearing

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

22. However, vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009 (with effect from\n01.10.2010), Clause (viii) of sub-Section 2 to Section 56 of the Act was\ninserted and the same is extracted hereunder as:\n"56. Income from other sources. -\n***\n(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions\nof sub-section (1), the following incomes

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)

22) From a further reading of Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 attached to Section 148, it is clear that the provisions Under Section 148 for issuance of notice before making assessment re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 operate in two different ways. For the purpose of Section 148, where Section 148A is applicable, Explanation 1 provides: xxxxx xxxx

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)

22) From a further reading of Explanation 1 and Explanation 2 attached to Section 148, it is clear that the provisions Under Section 148 for issuance of notice before making assessment re-assessment or re-computation under Section 147 operate in two different ways. For the purpose of Section 148, where Section 148A is applicable, Explanation 1 provides: xxxxx xxxx

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 u/s 195 and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance so made by the AO U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby deleted and ground of appeal is allowed. 18. In ground of appeal No. 2

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

22,06,46,7.00 Buenos Aires, Argentina 2. Md. Habibur Rahman Kalibarl, Azizabad, Patharghata Barguna 3,31,442.00 3. Nadia Anwar hasan Ali AL-Shekh, Othman, Snafer Building 4,68,120.00 Yemen 4. Reinhard Bosse UND Geschaftskunden Ag, 7,10,060.00 Bahnhofstrabe 17,49525 Lengerich, Germany 5. Shamlan Naseer Ali Doha, Qatar, YEMEN 1,76,698.00 Total

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

22, Alwar dated 24.07.2018 wherein the Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions u/s 40(a)(ia) r.w.s 194C of the IT Act on account of freight expenses. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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)

22 Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi. The ld. A/R has also drawn our attention on the approval of the Pr. CIT placed at page Nos. 7-8 of the paper book and also from the assessment record placed before us, we found that he has given one consolidated approval of 56 different assessee’s in one shot through one letter dated

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 of Rs. 98,51,320/- u/s 195 of the Act on the above sale consideration. The aforesaid immovable property was 10 Pradeep Kumar Rochwani, Jodhpur. purchased by the assessee through an Agreement for Sale executed on dated 23/12/2010 at the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,77,22,864/-. The assessee had paid Rs. 2,77,22,864/- in instalments