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

TDS on payments made to residents as specified in\nsection 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the\namount of expenditure claimed.\n3.5\nThe Finance Minister while introducing the amendment in para 207 of the Budget\nSpeech has stated as under:\n“207. Currently, where an assessee fails to deduct

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

TDS on payments made to residents as specified in section 40 (a) (ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed." The Finance Minister while introducing the amendment in Para 207

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

207/- 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has given certain relief to the assessee against which the Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. In its appeal, the Revenue has taken as many as 10 grounds of appeal. In most of the grounds, we find that the matter relating

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

section 12A(1)(b) states that: [(1)] The provisions of section 11 and section 12 shall not apply inrelation to the income of any trust or institution unless the followingconditions are fulfilled, namely:- (b)where the total income of the trust or institution as computedunder this Act without giving effect to [the provisions of section 11 andsection 12 exceeds

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. 8. This court, in the case of Malani Ramjivan Jagannath v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2007 (207) CTR 19, has held as under:- “Mere deviation in GP rate cannot be a ground for rejecting books of account and entering realm of estimate and guesswork

PANKAJ RASTOGI,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A) NFAC, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

TDS made. 6. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and also admitted that there is no fault of the assessee as employer has not deducted tax but not paid to the credit of the Government and in accordance with the provisions of section 205 no recovery be made on the assessee. The credit should

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263. [Para 5].” Also relied CIT, LTU, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank [2021] 123 taxmann.com 207 (Karnataka). Recently this Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Shri Keshoraipatan Sahkari Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. PCIT (2023) 223 TTJ(Jp) 992 (DPB 29-43) has also quashed an order u/s 263 holding that 16 A3logics (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT “Revision—Erroneous

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

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

SNEH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

TDS on payments made to residents as specified in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed.” The Finance Minister while introducing the amendment in para 207

M/S MITTAL PHARMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

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

TDS on payments made to residents as specified in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed. ” ITA 734/JP/2017_ 8 M/s Mittal Pharma P. Ltd. Vs ITO The Finance Minister while introducing the amendment in para 207

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

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

207/- was outstanding and the\nassessee paid Rs.1,30,43,654/- on 30.10.2019 the same is allowable as\nper provision of section 43B since paid before the due date of filling ITR\nleaving balance disallowable Rs.42,03,553/-\nThe Id. AO will verify the above figures with challans and delete the\namount in accordance with the law as discussed herein

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

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

207/- was outstanding and the\nassessee paid Rs.1,30,43,654/- on 30.10.2019 the same is allowable as\nper provision of section 43B since paid before the due date of filling ITR\nleaving balance disallowable Rs.42,03,553/-\nThe Id. AO will verify the above figures with challans and delete the\namount in accordance with the law as discussed herein

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

207/- was outstanding and the\nassessee paid Rs.1,30,43,654/- on 30.10.2019 the same is allowable as\nper provision of section 43B since paid before the due date of filling ITR\nleaving balance disallowable Rs.42,03,553/-\nThe Id. AO will verify the above figures with challans and delete the\namount in accordance with the law as discussed herein

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

207 the factual position was different. A survey was carried out at the business premises and godown of the assessee on 06.01.2003 during which certain discrepancies in cash, stock and renovation details were found. The assessee surrendered an amount of Rs. 88.14 lakhs during the survey on account of the discrepancies. However, at the time of the survey, the assessee