RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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 / 201A are applied; TDS liability should be considered only to the extent of TDS rates in force u/sec. 194C

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 / 201A are applied; TDS liability should be considered only to the extent of TDS rates in force u/sec. 194C

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 / 201A are applied; TDS liability should be considered only to the extent of TDS rates in force u/sec. 194C

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

TDS) JP. (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that\nif two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred.\nReliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax VI KY\nPillah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

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)

section 201(1) and 201(1A) for the AY 2011-12. We would like to submit that Rajasthan State Text Book Board is a Corporation constituted under Rajasthan Socities Registration Act, 1958and covered under One of such items notified : “Any Corporation established by a Central, State or Provincial Act”u/s 194A(3)(iii)(f). Therefore, no tax is required

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

226/-, during AY 2008-09 PinkcityColourstones\nPvt. Ltd. incurred loss of Rs. 10,12,186/- and only during AY 2009-10\ngenerated net profit of Rs 4,22,686/- and that as on 31.03.2009 the company\nPinckcityColourstones Pvt. Ltd. was having accumulated Business loss of Rs\n3,72,591/- and accumulated Unabsorbed Depreciation of Rs. 77,85,895/-.\nTotaling

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)

226 (SC) CIT v. Reliance Communication Ltd (DPB 8) Held: IT : SLP dismissed against High Court's ruling that where assessee raised funds by way of FCCBs and Assessing Officer made detailed enquiries about genuineness and creditworthiness of actual subscribers to such FCCBs in terms of section 68, mere fact that AO did not make any reference to said issue

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.” 30.12. The ld. A/R of the assessee also submitted that the rates at which power is purchased by distribution companies from generation companies are the rates charged by generation companies to middlemen (i.e. B2B business models) which are governed by altogether different level of market and are therefore not comparable to the rates

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

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in deleting the demand raised in respect of HUDCO for the FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19 u 201(1) of the IT Act 1961, whereas as per the provisions of section 194A

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

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in deleting the demand raised in respect of HUDCO for the FY 2017-18 relevant to AY 2018-19 u 201(1) of the IT Act 1961, whereas as per the provisions of section 194A

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

226(3) initiated against Mukesh J. shah was also dropped by the A.O. Therefore the provisions of section 68 does not attract ofthe loan transactions between the assessee M/s. SavitabenMangaldas Trust and Shri Mukesh J. Shah. Therefore the addition on this account is also liable to be deleted and the grounds raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

3, under the facts and circumstances of\nthe case, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in passing the assessment order dated\n20.11.2018 under Sections 201 and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961,\nduring the pendency of SLP No. 16734/2023 before the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt and the subsisting stay order dated 28.08.2023. The stay order\nexplicitly restrains

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - Assessment of any other person (Validity of) - Assessment year 2007- 08 - In appellate proceedings, Tribunal recorded a finding that satisfaction for initiation of proceedings under section 153C was recorded by Assessing officer on 02-02-2015 - Tribunal thus opined that Assessing Officer could not have initiated and passed

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

3) nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue as\nthe amount of disallowance as the amount of disallowance according to\nthe provisions of Rule 8D as applicable for the year under\nconsideration would be merely Rs. 2,118/- on account of indirect\nexpenses and nil on account of direct expenses as there were no\ndirectly attributable expenses.\nIn view