SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

section (3) of\nSection 139, a revised return could be filed in respect of such a return. We\nare conscious that we are not directly concerned with such a situation.\n8. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the view of the\nAppellate Tribunal. Tax appeal is, therefore, dismissed.\nLd. AO noted that there

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

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

234B(1) "(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed

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

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

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmanın.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

ITO, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR vs. SHRI GIRRAJ AGARWAL, JAIPUR

234B (3) of the Act is automatic, however in view of relief given in above para, AO is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A(3) & 2348(3) while giving effect to this appellate order. 4. प"रणाम "व"प अपील "वीकृत क" जाती है। In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH DANGAYACH, JAIPUR

234B (3) of the Act is automatic, however in view of relief given in above para, AO is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A(3) & 2348(3) while giving effect to this appellate order. 4. प"रणाम "व"प अपील "वीकृत क" जाती है। In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

ROOM NO. NA-103, NEW ANNEXE, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE, , JAIPUR vs. SHRI LAXMI RAM KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR

234B (3) of the Act is automatic, however in view of relief given in above para, AO is directed to re-compute the interest chargeable u/s 234A(3) & 2348(3) while giving effect to this appellate order. 4. प"रणाम "व"प अपील "वीकृत क" जाती है। In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SHREE BHAGWATI MACHINE PVT. LTD., AJMER

In the results appeal of the revenue in ITA no

3 % cess on it ] and on that service tax part the TDS is not required to be deducted therefore, the same was explained before ld. CIT(A) and the same was allowed. Before us, the ld. DR did not controvert this finding of facts and has merely relied upon the finding of the ld. AO. We have considered the facts

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

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

3. That the ld. Assessing Officer erred in making disallowance of Rs. 1,14,620/- made u/s 40a(ia) for non deduction of 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

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

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

234B & 234C of the Act. 5. The appellant reserved his right to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal on or before the date of appeal hearing. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 21 days. The ld. A/R has filed condonation application dated 20.11.2024 stating that “ That reason for late filing was that the order