SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

TDS return/statements beyond the time prescribed by the Act and/or the Rules. We therefore cannot agree with the argument of the Petitioners that the fee that is sought to be collected under section 234E of the Act is really nothing but a collection in the guise of a tax. 16. We are supported in our view by a judgment

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

20,000 for entries numbered 209,210,211 has narrated that this is “site advance to RIICO Ramganj Mandi for expenses Imprest account.” In view of this, assessee’s argument than no work order has been executed for RIICO is untenable. iii) For entry No. 75 pertaining to jewellery purchased, the narration of special auditor states that “amount appears

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty levied in 3 cases is hereby directed to be deleted subject to verification of payment of taxes along with fee and interest

TDS statements even after depositing of the taxes and since there is delay in filing the statement the provisions of section 271H are attracted and he therefore, levied the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- for each of the 4 quarters. 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

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

20,00,440/- being 15% of Rs 8,00,02,935/- on account of construction expenses and adding it in total income of the assessee appellant without considering the fact that it was never claimed by the assessee appellant. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.Lower Authorities grossly erred in disallowing Rs 3

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

section are duly complied, they are: i). The original order must be erroneous in law; and ii). The order should be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The assessee through its submissions and replies dated: • 20.10.2023 (Page No. 7-9 of Order of PCIT dated 20-03-2024), • 04.01.2024(Page No. 22-23 and 24-25 of Order

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

20,14,999/- | 68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

20,14,999/- | 68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

20,14,999/- | 68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

20,14,999/- | 68 of the Act in the form of | unsecured loan and partner’s | capital Assessed income Rs. 70,02,98,459/- R/o Rs. 70,02,98,459/- The total income of the assessee in the status of Firm for Assessment Year 2010-11 relevant to Previous Year 2009-10 is assessed

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

20,88,402, differences in ledgers u/s 69B amounting to Rs 28,30,670, transportation charges paid to various truck owners for supply of ballast/grit to railway u/s 69C amounting to Rs 3,00,000, addition on account of non-deduction of TDS on labour & transactions u/s 40(a)(ia) amounting to Rs 27,15,203, addition under section

RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

3) can be reasonably applied in the present case even though the proceedings are initiated in context of section 206C relating to default in collection of TCS in absence of specific limitation provisions provided under section 206C of the Act. 19. Even though the provisions of section 201 and section 206C are separate and independent provisions, the nature

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

3) was inserted to Section 201 of the Act and limitation has been provided for passing the order U/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. When this issue of limitation for passing the order U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act came before the Courts, It was held that the Assessing Officer cannot be given unfettered powers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

3) was inserted to Section 201 of the Act and limitation has been provided for passing the order U/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. When this issue of limitation for passing the order U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act came before the Courts, It was held that the Assessing Officer cannot be given unfettered powers

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

3) was inserted to Section 201 of the Act and limitation has been provided for passing the order U/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. When this issue of limitation for passing the order U/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act came before the Courts, It was held that the Assessing Officer cannot be given unfettered powers