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 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. and Rs.14,74,943/- to M/s Future Capital another NBFC. The assessee firm raised loan 2 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT from said NBFCs

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

234A and 234B, which becomes unjustified in view of the arbitrary addition made. 7. The ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly considering the grounds relating to initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not sustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

234A also as per which, the assessee is liable to pay interest on the tax payable by him after reducing advance tax and TDS/TCS if any paid by him apart from some other reductions. Such interest is payable from the date immediately following the due date for filing the return of income and is payable up to the date

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as charged by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kota. 7) The appellant craves to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal. ITA No. 571/JP/2015 (Revenue) : “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in – (i) Deleting the additions

ITO, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as charged by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kota. 7) The appellant craves to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal. ITA No. 571/JP/2015 (Revenue) : “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in – (i) Deleting the additions

ACIT, KOTA vs. URBAN IMPROVEMNT TRUST, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as charged by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kota. 7) The appellant craves to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal. ITA No. 571/JP/2015 (Revenue) : “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in – (i) Deleting the additions

URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as charged by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kota. 7) The appellant craves to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal. ITA No. 571/JP/2015 (Revenue) : “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in – (i) Deleting the additions

URBAN IPROVEMENT TRUST, KOTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeals/cross objection are allowed for statistical purposes

234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as charged by the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kota. 7) The appellant craves to add, alter, amend and modify any grounds of appeal. ITA No. 571/JP/2015 (Revenue) : “ On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in – (i) Deleting the additions

KRYA VIKRAYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED DEOLI,DEOLI TONK vs. ITO TONK, TONK

Appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the order of the AO is confirmed

Bench: Him.

234a, 234b and 234C which is unlawful, unjustifiable and against the natural justice hence deserve to be quashed. 6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend alter, delete all or any ground of appeal on or before hearing.” 2.2 In this appeal, the ld. AR of the assessee raised additional ground under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules, 1963 which

SHANKAR ENGINEERING WORKS FOUNDRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 4(2), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Notice U/s 148 is illegal Notice U/s 148 is illegal Notice U/s 148 is illegal: Notice U/s 148 is illegal : : : The Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has grossly erred in confirming the impugned order

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

234A and 234B, which becomes unjustified in view of the arbitrary addition\nmade.\n7. The ld. CIT (A) erred in not properly considering the grounds relating to\ninitiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A, 271A and 272A(1)(d), which are not\nsustainable when the primary addition itself is not justified.\n8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter

SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

TDS on interest by brushing aside assessee’s reasonable explanations and submissions and the learned CIT (Appeals), Kota also erred in confirming the same to the extent of Rs. 55,820/- without there being any basis. 4. That the ld. Assessing Officer further erred in disapproving the carried forward Speculation loss of A.Y. 2011-12 and making an addition

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

TDS in this year only since was shown in AS 26 of this year only. 3. As per Section 22, “Annual Letting value” which was available in this case, hence was rightly declared. The impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full.” 9.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

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

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

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest,\nso charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in\nfull.\n3\nITA Nos.197 to 199/JP/2025\nAhluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.\n6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter

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

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest,\nso charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in\nfull.\n3\nITA Nos.197 to 199/JP/2025\nAhluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.\n6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter

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

234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The\nappellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest,\nso charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in\nfull.\n3\nITA Nos.197 to 199/JP/2025\nAhluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Pvt. Ltd.\n6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter

ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA vs. ITO, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Section 194C since the amounts exceeded the admissible limits and since all the payments were made on bills raised by Transport Companies and not individual Truck owners, the payments were liable for TDS which the assessee fails to execute. Under the circumstances, the case laws cited by the assessee do not come to his rescue. In that ITAT Jaipur Bench