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

3) dated 31/10/2016, by making an\naddition of Rs. 1,26,87,868 under section 43 CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\nbeing the difference in the value/sale consideration of the of property as\nshown by the assessee at Rs.1,51,00,000/- and value adopted by the Sub-\nRegistrar for stamp duty purposes

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

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

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

3)(iii)(f). Therefore, no tax is required to be deducted at source at the time of paying interest to INDIRA GANDHI PANCHAYATI RAJ SANSTHAN. C.RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD The AO created a demand of Rs.90,946/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non deduction of TDS

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

3 of the appeal of the\nlearned AO is dismissed....\"\n1.3.vi Even otherwise order, in the present case, by NFAC was passed on\n17.03.2021, whereas, Explanation was inserted in Section 14A in the\nyear 2022, videFinance Act, 2022. Thus, at the time of passing of the\norder by NFAC, clarification, in terms of Explanation to Section 14A, was\nnot

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% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201

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% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201

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% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201

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, however is not deemed to be assessee in default by virtue of first proviso to section 201(1), then too (as in first proviso) for the purpose of this sub clause, it shall be deemed that assesse has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return by resident payee. 14 Shiv

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

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

3 4 5 Authorized Form Type Mode of A.Y To be used A.O furnishing Form exclusively for defaults under section Field 26A Paper Up to & 201(1A) Assessing including 2016- and/or Officer 17 40(a)(ia) (TDS

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. The governing section, 3

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee.” Reliance in this regard could also be placed on the following decisions: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs DCIT (TDS) (Special Bench) 2009- TIOL

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee.” Reliance in this regard could also be placed on the following decisions: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs DCIT (TDS) (Special Bench) 2009- TIOL

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD , SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

TDS), Kota passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A)r.w.s 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') both dated 15.07.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in both the appeal of the revenue are almost identical, are common and these both the appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

TDS), Kota passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A)r.w.s 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') both dated 15.07.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in both the appeal of the revenue are almost identical, are common and these both the appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being

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

3) r.w.s. 144C (13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] for the assessment year 2021-22. That order of assessment was passed after 2 Infoobjects Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT considering the direction of Dispute Resolution Panel [ in short “DRP’] passed under Section 144C(5) of the Act dated 27.09.2024. 2. In this appeal

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS liability of Rs. 14,851/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 3,119/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 1,48,509/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS liability of Rs. 14,851/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 3,119/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 1,48,509/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS liability of Rs. 14,851/- u/s 201(1) and interest of Rs. 3,119/- u/s 201(1A) on account of non deduction of tax at source on interest payment of Rs. 1,48,509/- to M/s. Bajaj Finance Ltd. by not considering the proviso to section

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed