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

20, 28,\n30).\n(Section\n263)\nany reasoning with respect\nto the order of AO being\nerroneous and prejudicial,\nhence, no finding by Ld.\nPCIT.\nb. Sufficient enquiry by the\nLd. AO + detailed\nsubmissions made.\nc. Assessment is under\nFaceless\nAssessment\nScheme having multiple\nteams, thus, proper\nverification done at\nassessment level

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS u/s. 194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered u/s. 13(3

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 40A(3). Ground No. 4 That the assesse provided all relevant documents confirmations to prove genuineness creditworthiness and identity of creditor hence the addition made treating the same as purchase as bad in law and hence no further addition in respect of other disallowance can be made Had the learned Assessing Officer had not made addition u/s 68 which

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

20-7-2022, disclosing vital facts and seeking an\nextension until 5-8-2022, this non-application of mind rendered draft and final\nassessment orders invalid - Held, yes - Whether further, notice dated 12-7-2022\nunder section 142(1) was clearly vitiated on account of granting hardly three days\nto assessee to respond and denial of sufficienttime to respond

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

20 percent but there was no such profit in society, thus section 13 was not violated. It was held that assessee society had merely given interest free loan to another society and Loan was neither investment nor deposit. Section 13(3) is not applicable in this case. Thus there was no violation of section 13 and Revenue’s appeal dismissed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

20 and stated that the said payment hits the provision of section 194C of the Act. As regards the food 12 Infoobjects Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT service there was continuous supply of foods and covered by the provision of section 194C of the Act and therefore, relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. We have heard

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

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

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

section\n11 (2) and 11(1)(a) of the\nAct\n33,50,772/-\n33,50,772/-\n\n5.\nUnverifiable Creditors\n16,75,286/-\n16,75,286/-\n\n6.\n15% of Construction\nExpenses\n1,20,00,440/-\n1,20,00,440/-\n\n7.\nDisallowance of Rs\n3,69,567 out of total\nexpenses

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS Amount Landlord rented Rent premises Jagpal Singh Jyoti Nagar Class room 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- HUF Piprali Road coaching building Sikar ½ portion Smt. Mamkaur Jyoti Nagar Class room 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Piprali Road coaching building Sikar ½ portion Gurukripa Jyoti Nagar Office and Class 26,46,000/- 2,64,600/- Career Piprali Road room coaching

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)

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 of rent (v) Inadmissible claim of club fees (vi) Under-reporting of scrap sale

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

20,432/- 2,10,86,499/- 3.02 2012-13 74,71,14,618/- 3,44,82,706/- 4.62 2013-14 81,98,64,757/- 2,45,72,221/- 3.00 2014-15 41,19,58,844/- (83,32,850/-) (2.02)* * Assessee was in Gross loss Without prejudice to above, it is further submitted that has been stated by ld.AO

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

20,432/- 2,10,86,499/- 3.02 2012-13 74,71,14,618/- 3,44,82,706/- 4.62 2013-14 81,98,64,757/- 2,45,72,221/- 3.00 2014-15 41,19,58,844/- (83,32,850/-) (2.02)* * Assessee was in Gross loss Without prejudice to above, it is further submitted that has been stated by ld.AO