MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

200/- by alleging that TDS has not been deducted by the assessee u/s. 194IA of the Act at the time of purchase of immovable property, alleging that property was purchased during the year under consideration and has not considered the submissions made by the assessee. Aggrieved from the said order of the AO, assessee preferred an appeal before

GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARIA,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CPC) (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS return of the appellant has been processed on 29.07.2016, therefore, I am of the considered view that adjustment made under section 200

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

TDS provisions and a provision therefore was made therein to disallow the expenses for which, tax was not deducted at source and/or the tax having been deducted at source was not paid to the credit of the Central Government within the time prescribed in section 200

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)

TDS on payment of rent (v) Inadmissible claim of club fees (vi) Under-reporting of scrap sale (vii) Anomaly in deduction claimed u/s 80-IC 3. It is submitted that there is no delay in deposit of employee’s contribution to PF as explained before the PCIT (Pg 9-11 of the order) and explained with reference to Ground No.2

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS is governed by the provisions of Section 201(1A)(ii) of the 1961 Act read with Rule 119A(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. As per Section 201(1A) of the Act, Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), if any such person, principal officer or company as is referred to in that sub-section does

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. MAN MOHAN KRISHNA, ALWAR

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS, on payments to contractors, having not been deducted as required u/s 194C of the Act. 12. The Assessing Officer observed in the penalty order that since the assessee had declared loss in the income tax return, it was a case calling for levy of penalty under sub-section (7) of Section 270A of the Act. 13. In the course

GYANESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

200 As per section 10(10AA) [EL 5 Shri Gyanesh Chandra Srivastava, Jaipur. encashment]. Gratuity 10,00,000 10,00,000 00 u/s 10(10) [Death cum retirement gratuity received]. Income from other 4,37,082 00 4,37,082 sources That the asseesse claimed the amount of Rs 46,23,490/- as retrenchment compensation which was exempted under section

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

200% in respect of disallowance of interest on TDS. Appellant prays that the issue of allowability of interest on TDS is debatable and therefore disallowance thereof does not amount to misreporting/underreporting of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty imposed by ld. AO without

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

200% in respect of disallowance of interest on TDS. Appellant prays that the issue of allowability of interest on TDS is debatable and therefore disallowance thereof does not amount to misreporting/underreporting of income. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty imposed by ld. AO without

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3)\nof the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act] by ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur [ for short\nAO ]\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: -\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nadmitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962\nwithout

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS and the same has been duly deducted and paid. It is worthy to note that the income of Smt. Reshma Morani was under highest tax bracket (copy of computation of total income and ITR V are enclosed (placed on 1-5 of paper book)), this proves that there was no intention to save income tax liability. 5 M/s Morani

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

200-201].\n1.6. That the assessee Company's DTA Unit (Mahapura) rented the building and\nmachinery situated at Mahapura, Jaipur [PB 387-393] which was earlier\nowned by PinckcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. during the F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to\nAY 2012-13 and started its own domestic Operations being Non-deduction\nclaiming Unit situated at Mahapura, Jaipur [PB 204]. That

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred