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

35,187/- as service tax, Rs 5,02,000/- as stamp duty and Rs 30,000/- as registration charges. 17 ITA No. 744/JP/2023 Narain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). For sake of clarity we are reproducing herein below the relevant portion of proviso “Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

2 to Section 9(1)(vii) to bring it to tax under fiction created by deeming provisions of Section 9- Revenue's Appeal dismissed. 8.9 ACIT vs. Gupta H.C. Overseas (I) Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 46 CCH 0576 (AgraTrib) "Business Expenditure-Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances Disallowance of design charges-Deletion of disallowance-Assessee was exporter of leather

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

35,061/- to the income of the assessee appellant trust while disallowing the benefit of exemption under Section 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant trust. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower Authority grossly erred in confirming the addition made by ld. assessing

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

2,31,05,850/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 27,65,853/- to Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) as testing fee on which TDS was required to be made under section 194C of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the said payment. Accordingly

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

35,485/- on account of non-deduction of TDS for payment M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur made to non-resident having no PE. The disallowance so made & confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the provisions of law and facts. 3. 20,67,054/- : The ld. CIT(A) erred

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS, filing of PAN of the Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and (vi) If the assessee

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

TDS u/s. 194A of the Act. Therefore, as per provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30 % of this amount which comes to Rs. 1,05,52,530/- was liable to be disallowed. The ld. PCIT further observed that the assessee received duty drawback of Rs. 2,37,355/-. However, there is no evidence on record that this

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)

section 263. From the records on merit of the case, we noticed that as per facts of the present case the assessee is a partnership firm which was incorporated on 15-05-2015. The object 35 Career Point Limited, Kota. and business of the assessee firm was to purchase, sell, acquire, develop, construct and to give on rent / lease

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

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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

2,83,524. Taking reference from the immediately preceding year,\nthe AO made an addition of Rs. 3,00,000 for the year under consideration.\nAggrieved by the addition, the assessee company preferred an appeal before the\nCIT(A)-IV, Jaipur, the appeal of the assessee company was dismissed.\nGROUND NO. 1:\n78. Ground No. 1 pertains to the passing

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

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

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

35,265/- is being made to assessee’s total income u/s 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961 being deemed dividend. ” 12. We have heard the rival contentions and pursued the material available on record. The assessee is holding 80% equity holding in M/s Raj Auto Wheels Private Limited during the financial year relevant to impugned assessment year. During

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 199(1) r.w. rule 37BA, it is held that the AO was justified in restricting the TDS credit corresponding to rental income owned by the appellant. 2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee mainly prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving the credit of TDS 7 Shri Daya Ram Poonia

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

35 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT found at fault by the ld. PCIT. As regards the TDS on rent the same was on account of the rent and taxi hire charges and was not deductible being below the threshold limit under the law and even the tax auditor has not pointed out any discrepancies on that issue. As regards

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

TDS vide challanNo.48378 dated 20/03/2014 HDFC Bank During the year under consideration, i.e. Assessment Year 2014-15, sale deed was registered on 21/03/2014, wherein the Stamp Valuation Authority adopted the value at Rs.2,77,87,868/- as against sale consideration of Rs. 1,51,00,000/- received by the assessee. Thus, the value adopted by the Sub- registrar for purposes