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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 40(a)(1) for failing to deduct tax u/s 195 to disallow expenditure to extent of Rs.26.75 crores by Assessment Order-CIT(A) held that amount paid to non resident sub-arranger was in nature of commission / brokerage and not fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1) (vil)-Consequently, CIT(A) held that there

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

TDS. (e)The ld. AO has disallowed the income of Rs.33,50,772/- (33,45,494/- +5,278/-) and also taxed the same @ Maximum Marginal Rate U/s 164(2). The Id. AO has alleged that the assessee trust is doing business activities in and not complying statutory provisions of the Act. Thus the AO has completed the assessment assessing

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

TDS deducted on the said compensation. In the assessment proceeding ld. AO treated the said compensation as chargeable to tax as per provision of section 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145(B) of the Act. When the matter carried to ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition based on the reasoning supported by the ld. AO. Before

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

38(2), New Delhi issued by the correct\nJurisdiction Officer, was beyond the period of limitation and therefore, this\nwas also invalid. Thus, assessment order passed without acquiring the correct\njurisdiction for a scrutiny by way of notice under section143(2) is void ab\ninitio and thus we quash the same. As we have already quashed, the\nassessment order

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)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

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)

2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra

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)

2: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra

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

38,92,787/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” Once the payment in question is commission then the provisions of Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act are applicable only if such sum is chargeable to tax under this Act. As per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act the total income of non-resident includes all income

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Section 199(1) of the Act, it has been established on record that the assessee has made excess claim in his return of income which is not allowable. According to the AO, the assessee is eligible for TDS in proportion to his share of rental income declared only which comes to Rs. 12,533/- (Rs. 2,38

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 into the Act – ABCAUS case law citation – 939 2016 (06) ITAT (June 2016) Inductotherm ndia Pvt Ltd vs. CIT (Special Civil application No. 858 of 2006) (GUJ HC), it has been held that The assessing officerin the guise of power to reopen an assessment cannot seek to undertake a fishing or roving enquiry and seek to verify claims

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

section 263 on 21/03/2023 setting aside the order of the learned Assessing Officer passed on 24/3/2021. While passing the order u/s 263, the Learned PCIT has specified the following items on which the order of the Learned Assessing Officer has been found erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (i) Disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account

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

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

38,06,776 to the income of assessee,\ncomputing the sale consideration on the basis of the DLC value of the property.\nAggrieved by the addition, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), Jaipur,\nwho dismissed the appeal. The assessee has now filed the present appeal before us\nchallenging the addition made by the AO and confirmed

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

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)

2. In the present case, the Ld. PCIT at Para-16, Pg 18 to 20 held the order of AO erroneous on following issues:- (i) Delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF (ii) Non-deduction of TDS on all foreign remittance (iii) Non-deduction of TDS on commission paid to directors (iv) Non-deduction of TDS on payment

RAJASTHAN AVAS VIKAS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

TDS amount of Rs. 38,440/- 2. That the application of section 199 of the Income Tax Act of Rs. 38