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

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)

6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

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.

6)/206C(7) of the I.T. Act that tax was levied as above for non deduction of TDS @ 2% on the payment made for purchase of packing materials based on the findings made by the AO in course of survey operation u/s 132A(2A) of I T.Act. As per said order it is also observed that the appellant deductor made

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.

6)/206C(7) of the I.T. Act that tax was levied as above for non deduction of TDS @ 2% on the payment made for purchase of packing materials based on the findings made by the AO in course of survey operation u/s 132A(2A) of I T.Act. As per said order it is also observed that the appellant deductor made

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.

6)/206C(7) of the I.T. Act that tax was levied as above for non deduction of TDS @ 2% on the payment made for purchase of packing materials based on the findings made by the AO in course of survey operation u/s 132A(2A) of I T.Act. As per said order it is also observed that the appellant deductor made

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.

6)/206C(7) of the I.T. Act that tax was levied as above for non deduction of TDS @ 2% on the payment made for purchase of packing materials based on the findings made by the AO in course of survey operation u/s 132A(2A) of I T.Act. As per said order it is also observed that the appellant deductor made

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.

6)/206C(7) of the I.T. Act that tax was levied as above for non deduction of TDS @ 2% on the payment made for purchase of packing materials based on the findings made by the AO in course of survey operation u/s 132A(2A) of I T.Act. As per said order it is also observed that the appellant deductor made

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)

220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40a(ia). Recommendation. Section 40a(ia) should drawn/deleted and/or bring suitable amendments in the said act, to help assessee in losing genuine deduction on this account. Hon'ble Finance Minister found merit in the above suggestions made by the Industry in the form of representations in their

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

MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

6. However, notwithstanding its dismissal for want of prosecution, even on merits of facts as available on record the appellant’s appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of the following reasons:- 6.1 Grounds of appeal relate to addition of Rs. 2,88,304/- regarding income on receipt of Rs. 5.97,156/-, in the order passed

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

6. Ground No.2 relate to raising demand of Rs.1,492 for non- deduction of tax at source u/s.194C and Rs.298 charging of interest u/s.201(1A). The appellant deductor failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C on the payment of Rs.74,593/- made to Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. The AO treated the appellant deductor as assessee in default for non-deduction

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

6. Ground No.2 relate to raising demand of Rs.1,492 for non- deduction of tax at source u/s.194C and Rs.298 charging of interest u/s.201(1A). The appellant deductor failed to deduct tax at source u/s.194C on the payment of Rs.74,593/- made to Rajasthan Patrika Pvt Ltd. The AO treated the appellant deductor as assessee in default for non-deduction

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

220 (HP) which after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam, HUF [2009] 182 Taxman 368 /315ITR 1 (SC) has held that interest received under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on enhanced compensation is not interest under section 34 but is in the nature of compensation and therefore, was not taxable

AO (SC), AVVNL, SIKAR,SIKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

220, KV, G.S.S. AVVNL (TDS) Sabalpura Power House, Ghaziabad. Fatehpur Road, Sikar TAN No.: JDHA 02576A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Ankur Salgia (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 01/12/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 14 /02/2022

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

TDS was deducted on Interest payment. iv) On 08/11/2016, assessee had Yes, examined. There were heavy withdrawn Rs. 1.50 Lacs from receipts from cash sale and ICICI Bank and Rs. 1.10 Lacs corresponding deposit of cash in the bank from SBBJ. If the assessee really account. As on 31/12/2016, cash had cash of Rs. 1.27 Crore, he balance was just