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)

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 or delete

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,SHRAWASTI vs. ITO, WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

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

234B and 234 C) and notice under section 271 AAC(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 has also been issued separately by the Id.A.O.. 9 Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal vs. ITO The appeal of the assessee has been arbitrarily dismissed by Id. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi vide impugned order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act dated 03-06-2022. The aggrieved

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

TDS deducted to the amount of Rs.2,19,391/- as claimed by the\nappellant and allow the same if found in order. Grounds raised regarding charging\nof interest under section 234B

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

TDS deducted to the amount of Rs.2,19,391/- as claimed by the\nappellant and allow the same if found in order. Grounds raised regarding charging\nof interest under section 234B

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

TDS deducted to the amount of Rs.2,19,391/- as claimed by the\nappellant and allow the same if found in order. Grounds raised regarding charging\nof interest under section 234B

SHRI PARNAMI PANCHAYAT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS, if admissible, as per provisions of Income Tax Law and related Rules while giving effect to this Appeal Order. Thus, Ground no. 5, is partly allowed. Ground no.2,3& 4 challenge the action of Ld. A.O., in and non giving the benefit of Section 11 and 12 as the appellant failed to produce copy of Registration 12AA

JAGDISH PRASAD DHAKA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

234B and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the appellant is wrong and bad in law. Kindly delete the same. 8. That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any on the above grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee derives income from retail

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.

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 reads

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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 or delete

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

PANKAJ RASTOGI,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A) NFAC, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

TDS made. 6. Per Contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and also admitted that there is no fault of the assessee as employer has not deducted tax but not paid to the credit of the Government and in accordance with the provisions of section 205 no recovery be made on the assessee. The credit should

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

MEHAR CHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

section 56 of IT Act, 1961 and the CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon. 3. The Ld. AO has erred in law as well on the facts and circumstances of the case in not giving the credit of TDS of Rs.56,122/- u/s 194A and self assessment tax of Rs.7,230/- u/s 140A

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

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

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

section 115BBE and accordingly this\nground of Appeal is hereby dismissed.\n8.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of\ninterest of Rs.8,25,900/- u/s 234B. In this regard it is stated that charging of\ninterest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore, the AO is directed to\ngive effect of the same

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

section 115BBE and accordingly this\nground of Appeal is hereby dismissed.\n8.1 In this ground, the appellant has raised issue in respect of charging of\ninterest of Rs.8,25,900/- u/s 234B. In this regard it is stated that charging of\ninterest is mandatory and consequential in nature, therefore, the AO is directed to\ngive effect of the same