BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

2 are against invoking of provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act and consequential levy of tax u/s 201(1) and charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of the I.T.Act on the payments made by the assessee for purchase of packing material and third Ground of appeal is of general nature. Thus in all the five appeals issue involved

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

2 are against invoking of provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act and consequential levy of tax u/s 201(1) and charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of the I.T.Act on the payments made by the assessee for purchase of packing material and third Ground of appeal is of general nature. Thus in all the five appeals issue involved

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

2 are against invoking of provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act and consequential levy of tax u/s 201(1) and charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of the I.T.Act on the payments made by the assessee for purchase of packing material and third Ground of appeal is of general nature. Thus in all the five appeals issue involved

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

2 are against invoking of provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act and consequential levy of tax u/s 201(1) and charging of interest u/s 201(1A) of the I.T.Act on the payments made by the assessee for purchase of packing material and third Ground of appeal is of general nature. Thus in all the five appeals issue involved

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

220 (SC), it was held that Entries in\nloose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers\nare not “books of account” and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a\nperson with liability. Even if books of account are regularly kept in the ordinary\ncourse of business, the entries therein shall not alone be sufficient

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative tally of opening stock and purchases with sales and closing stock, the best course to follow would be to reject the book results

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative tally of opening stock and purchases with sales and closing stock, the best course to follow would be to reject the book results

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

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 along with a penal interest under section 13 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT 201(A) and under section 220(2

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

220 Taxman 414) (Allahabad High Court) • Lintas India Ltd. v. ACIT (5 SOT 310) (Mumbai ITAT). 7.18 The Bank also places reliance on the following judicial precedents which have upheld that where the employer has made a bona fide estimate regarding deduction of tax at source, it cannot be regarded as an assessee in default in terms of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ITA No. 975/JP/2017 is partly allowed for statistical

TDS and observing that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) made by the finance Act 2010 was retrospective in nature.” 2. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of both these appeals are on the same issue wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for depositing the employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ITA No. 975/JP/2017 is partly allowed for statistical

TDS and observing that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) made by the finance Act 2010 was retrospective in nature.” 2. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of both these appeals are on the same issue wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for depositing the employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

TDS qualifies for deduction u/s 80IA. Therefore, other miscellaneous income comprising of site plan charges,lease agreement form, road cutting charges, penalty recovered from contractor etc. are eligible for deduction u/s 80IA. This has been accepted by Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case (supra) and therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in not allowing the deduction

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

220/- each is found. Further on the last page salary/wages payment of Rs. Sh. Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota 2550/- is mentioned for 24.10.10 but in cashbook entry for the month of October found entered on 24.08.10, which clearly indicated that books are prepared after date of survey on the basis of seized record.” Further, it is also found

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS in Revised Return. 3. Reduction of income in Revised Return & Claim of Refund. 4. Refund Claim 4 AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LTD . JAIPUR VS PCIT -1 , JAIPUR 5. Unsecured Loans 6. ICDS Compliance and Adjustment 7. Sales Turnover/Receipts 8. Expenses incurred for Earning Exempt Income 9. Deduction from Total Income under Chapter VI-A On the basis of material