MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS) Vs. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 240 Taxman 578 (Guj.) (HC) In this case the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS) Vs. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 240 Taxman 578 (Guj.) (HC) In this case the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

TDS) Vs. Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. 240 Taxman 578 (Guj.) (HC) In this case the AO made addition on the ground that the assessee had breached section

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR, TIGER PROJECT SARISKA (LOCAL AUTHORITY) ,SARISKA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA ,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

section 144 of the Act. It is for the assessee to declare its results and offer its books of accounts for verification and then, it is for AO to determine whether the book results so declared are correct or not or the books of accounts have to be rejected as not depicting correct state of affairs of the assessee

RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY,AJMER vs. ACIT, AJMER

In the result, the cross appeals are dismissed

TDS and the balance amount of Rs. 9,74,980/- was considered as expenditure admissible as deduction for the purpose of computing the business income. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, when this deduction was made by the department from the contract receipts, the same are allowable deductions and, therefore, we do not find any error

ACIT, AJMER vs. RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY, AJMER

In the result, the cross appeals are dismissed

TDS and the balance amount of Rs. 9,74,980/- was considered as expenditure admissible as deduction for the purpose of computing the business income. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, when this deduction was made by the department from the contract receipts, the same are allowable deductions and, therefore, we do not find any error

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS and cannot create automatic and conclusive charge of income in hands of recipient unless concrete material is brought on records by Ld AO/revenue to say that assessee concerned has obtained said sum in its coffers which can’t be left in lurch as done in extant case . 8.1 Solemn duty of making of independent and meaningful enquiry u/s 133/6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS and cannot create automatic and conclusive charge of income in hands of recipient unless concrete material is brought on records by Ld AO/revenue to say that assessee concerned has obtained said sum in its coffers which can’t be left in lurch as done in extant case . 8.1 Solemn duty of making of independent and meaningful enquiry u/s 133/6