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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on\nrecord..\n..otherwise not disputed by the A.O. We further note that\neven in the final agreement which is registered on 16/09/2014, the payment\nschedule is given which is as per the various stages of completion of project,\ntherefore, the parties at the time of booking, agreed

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

7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section\n24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 194C(7) have to be read together to extend the immunity from TDS, our attention is drawn to the fact that though the Finance Act, (N0.2) 2009 introduced, inter alia, Sec. 194C(6) and 194C(7), similar and analogous provision had been very much in existence under proviso 2

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.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

2,09,191/- to non-residents. As per section 195 of the I.T. Act, the assessee was liable to make the above payments after making TDS. But the assessee has failed to do so. 3.1 The issue as to whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 195 and whether the disallowance was liable to be made

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 194C of the I.T. Act which reveals that the payments are contractual payments after completion of work as desired by the payers. Since the work performed/ done by the assessee society is at the instance of conditions of MOU/Agreements only and not out of the 7 M/s. Zila Paryawarn Sudhar Samiti, Jhunjhunu, vs CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur society, the activities

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2,09,560 – ₹30,009) i.e. TDS claimed u/s 194Q) is absolutely unjustified and incorrect which deserves to be allowed to the assessee. Therefore, disallowance of TDS to the extent of ₹ 1,79,551/- being incorrect and bad in law may please be directed to be allowed and the assessee prays accordingly. As regards the balance TDS credit

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

7. Per contra, ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the interest chargeable to tax subjected to tax as per provisions of section 56C(2)(viii) of the Act. Ld. DR also submitted that the assessee received interest on which TDS

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)

7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction to excise the power vested u/s. 263 of the Act as the assessee’s address as per the assessment order as well as of the return of income filed is of Gurgaon state Haryana

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

TDS) within the time-limit specified in sub-section (2) of section 197A, that was a distinct omission or default for which a penalty is prescribed Section 273B provides that no penalty shall be imposed under any of the clauses of sub-section (2) of section 272A for the delay, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause

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

TDS Ajmer erred in conducting the proceedings u/s 201/201(1A) and thereby\npassing the order dated 20.11.2018. The issuance of the notice and the passing of the\norder u/s 201(1)/201(1A) was issued by the non-jurisdictional AO whereas it must be\nissued by the jurisdictional AO (ACIT/JCIT-TDS) only. The assessment proceedings\nconcluded by the non-jurisdictional

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

7,07,914 in respect\nof foreign travel expenses of staff of the assessee company\nundertaken for business purposes. Details thereof have been\nfurnished. This foreign currency was for ticket and expenses\nincurred on foreign travelling by the staff of the assessee and\nhence it was claimed the same are not liable for TDS u/s 195 of\nIncome

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. 6. That the A.O had cited CBDT's circular in this regard relied on explanation 2 to section 9(1))(vii)(b) of the Act and rejected the assessee's claim, resulting in an addition of Rs.28,40,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5.3.2 It is important to note here that the Finance

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

TDS was deducted or not the nature of payment is\nrequired to be taxed in the hands of the assessee and thus, based\non the certificate of payment being placed on record stating that\nthe payment is as per provision of section 28 of the Land\nAcquisition Act we are of the considered we that the same is\ncovered

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) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

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) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

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

7, before the date specified in section\n139. However, no return of Income was furnished.\n2. Audit Report was not furnished\nThe assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961. Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s 11 will\nbe available only if the accounts are audited

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

7, before the date specified in section\n139. However, no return of Income was furnished.\n\n2. Audit Report was not furnished\nThe assessee trust is required to be audited as per provisions of section 12 of\nthe I.T. Act, 1961. Section 12A(1)(b) provides that the exemption u/s 11 will\nbe available only if the accounts are audited