AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

section 43B in the absence of\nany proof of payment,\n3. Direct the assessee to file an affidavit confirming whether the documents at\npages 20 to 43 of the paper book were ever submitted before lower authorities,\n4. Reject admission of any additional evidence not forming part of lower\nproceedings unless a proper application under Rule 29 is filed

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

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 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does not say that such declaration has to be obtained

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 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does not say that such declaration has to be obtained

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 2015 ITL 1007 (Bang.) (Trib.) Section 206C(1A) mandates that any person responsible for collecting tax under section 206C(1) need not do so if he obtains a declaration from the buyer that he is purchasing the goods for use in manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things. It does not say that such declaration has to be obtained

RAJDHANI MINERAL JAIPUR PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-I , JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

section 206(1) of the act for non- deduction of TCS. S. NO. NAME OF PARTY TOTAL SALE 1. AGARSEN FOUNDARY PVT LTD. 530413.00 2. ANKIT TRADING COMPANY 2193591.00 3. HARI INDUSTRIES 1992497.00 4. K.M INDUSTRIES 800226.00 5. KHANDELWAL TRADING COMPANY 976152.00 6. MANGLA ISPAT JAIPUR LTD 3551632.00 7. MANGLA PRODUCTS PVT LTD 1331287.00 8. MUKESH IRON FOUNDARY

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

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 201(1) / 201 * (1A) . Show- cause notice having been issued on 23rd September 2003. Order passed u/s. 201(1) / 201 * (1A) on 28th March 2011 was barred by limitation. (P.B. pages 143 to 156) (4) ITO Vs. Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin (2018) 196 TTI (JP) 232: TDS- Tax collection at source under sec. 206C. Time limit for passing order under

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

MINING ENGINEER, MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT (STATE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT),ALWAR vs. CIT (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

TDS, Alwar 8.1 The solitary ground of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the amount of Rs. 9,48,560/- (including interest at Rs. 2,01,661/-) on account of short collection of TCS as per Section 206C(6) of the Act on royalty, dead rent etc. 8.2 Apropos solitary ground of the assessee

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

206 service tax +71,500/- VAT) at the time of agreement and discharged full payment liability. The appellant submitted before the AO, a certificate from the builder from whom flat was purchased, wherein the builder certified that he had received full 6 Indira Giri vs. ITO payment against flat booking no. 701 through Post dated cheques from Dr. Indira Giri

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

Section 80IA (8) of the Act. In CIT vs. Thiagarajar Mills Ltd. in Tax Case(Appeal) Nos.68 to 70 of 2010 dated 07-06-2010, it was held that captive consumption of power generated by the assessee from its own power plant would enable the assessee to derive profit and gains by working out the cost of such consumption

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee – Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that it would be necessary to examine relevant provisions of State Sales Tax Act and Rules to know as to who would be entitled to refund – Accordingly, Tribunal remanded matter to Commissioner (Appeals) – However

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

206/- Add: Surcharge @ 10% Rs. 3,26,421/- Total Rs. 35,90,627/- Less: Taxes paid Rs. ------------- Balance tax payable Rs. 35,90,627/- Interest u/s 158BFA(1) Rs.------------ Net amount payable Rs. 35,90,627/- Assessed u/s set aside/158BC read with section 143(3) at income of Rs. 54,40,344/-.” 3. At the same time, Learned Assessing Officer

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on managerial commission - ground No. 6.\n11. Submission made by the ld. AR on various issues which are being\nmentioned in the subsequent paragraphs alongwith respective grounds of\nappeal, are tabulated in short as below for the sake of convenience (taken\nfrom submission of ld.AR):\nSI.\nNo.\n1.\nIssue\nDisallowance of interest of\nRs.89

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

TDS) [2023] 154 taxmann.com 465 (SC) passed order as under-\nORDER\n1. Delay condoned.\n2. Leave granted.\nThis two sentence order establishes the application of mind of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt of India. The application of mind is the whole process through which the all\nthe facts and questions of law has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court\nand