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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia) which in clear terms provides that disallowance u/s ,40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee has not been treated as an `assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. And this provision though inserted later was only clarificatory in nature, and applies to the year under appeal also Therefore

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia) which in clear terms provides that disallowance u/s ,40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee has not been treated as an `assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. And this provision though inserted later was only clarificatory in nature, and applies to the year under appeal also Therefore

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

227/- disallowance u/s 37 of Rs 1,34,636/- and disallowance u/s 40A of Rs 70,000/- loss has been reduced to Rs.1,03,39,557/ As the assessee did not deduct TDS on interest payment made to the Kotak Mahendra Prime Ltd, the assessee should reduce the loss claimed by Rs.42,40,572/ Kindly find herewith attached also

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD) (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

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

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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

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;\nIn this regard, reliance is placed on:\n243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT\n“A bare reading of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it\nclear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the\nCommissioner suomotu under it, is that the order of the Income Tax\nOfficer

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS\n9,303.00\nTotal\n86,73,560.00\nFrom the perusal of the above table and also as per the Interest\nexpenses ledger (APB 68), it is evident that major portion of finance\ncost has being incurred on loans taken for purchasing any vehicle or\nequipment or real estate property for the assessee's business to the\ntune

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL WELFARE,JAIPUR vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS has been deducted belongs to receipts from Government of Rajasthan. In the captioned notice, the said receipts have been termed as business receipts therefore violative of clause (a) of 12AB(4) and section 2(15) along with deed of society which do not allow contract receipts. At the outset it is critical to mention that Clause

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87\ntaxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR\n192(SC) – The Hon'ble Court held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour\nof the assessee should be preferred.\n(e) CIT Vs K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC)\n(f) DCIT Vs Ratan Corpn

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS deducted on payments made for sales promotion expenses. 10. Submit the ledger for sales promotion expenses in excel format for the AY under consideration and Profit and Loss statement to ascertain the total Gross receipts 11. Please submit the details in the following manner AY 2017- AY 2018- 18 19 Gross Receipts Net receipts Sales promotion Expenses Total Expenses

M/S BHAGIRATH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS by Punjab Technical University on the franchisee fees paid by them which is payment of part of the amount received from the students could not make the activity of the assessee as business as observed in the decision referred supra. Hence, for these reason the exemption u/s 10(23C) cannot be denied. 6. It was further submitted that another