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

SPECIAL JUDGE COURT SC/ST,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

TDS return of the appellant has been processed on 04.10.2017, therefore I am of the considered view that adjustment made under section 200(A)(1)(c) in respect of the ITA 1086/JP/2019 3

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

3) of section 200" Provided that in case any person, including the principal officer of a company fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter on the sum paid to a resident or on the sum credited to the account of a resident but is not deemed

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)

3,00,000 10,06,200 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

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

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

3,20,660/- (as per page 40 of SCN, i.e. (Common paper book Volume I Part I page 40) which have also been treated by Ld. AO as unaccounted sales without verifying both these details from the books of accounts. In this regard, it is submitted that the three bills seized as per page 15, 17 & 18 of Exhibit

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)

3 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT running restaurants, bar and room rent services. On perusal of audit report and books of accounts produced by the assessee’s A/R on filed with the return of income in Form No. 3CD, it has been noticed that the assessee has not deducted TDS on 55,29,863/- and thereby the same

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200/- is being wrong and bad in law deserves to be deleted.” 27. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 26.2 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “ I have also gone through various judgements cited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200/- is being wrong and bad in law deserves to be deleted.” 27. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 26.2 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “ I have also gone through various judgements cited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200/- is being wrong and bad in law deserves to be deleted.” 27. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 26.2 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “ I have also gone through various judgements cited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200/- is being wrong and bad in law deserves to be deleted.” 27. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 26.2 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “ I have also gone through various judgements cited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

200/- is being wrong and bad in law deserves to be deleted.” 27. We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para No. 26.2 of his order and the same is reproduced below: “ I have also gone through various judgements cited

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

200(3) provides for requirement to file TDS statement within prescribed time. In the case of assesee there is delay in respect of 3rd quarter of F.Y. 2015-16, the assesse filed quarterly statement on 25.07.2016 and the same was processed on 29.07.2016 and therefore, there was a delay respectively for 3rd quarter of F.Y. 2015-16. The assessee

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