DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) is also attracted wherever TDS on payment of 7 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur commission to a non-resident has not been made at appropriate rates. These provisions bar deduction of any payment on account of commission [fee for technical services] made to a non-resident, without making TDS

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS in compliance of provisions of section 195(1) of the Act. Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the authorities below erred as regards said disallowance, same having been made contrary to the law and a decision already in favour of the appellant. In this regard, Ld. AR has relied on decision in ITA No. 60/JP/2019 dated

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS has been paid u/s 194C, the copy of ITR\nacknowledgments have been provided, all the transaction have been carried out\nthrough the banking channels. Hence, the said expenses cannot be help to be\nbogus in nature.\nThe appellant cannot be forced/compelled to produce its parties to prove\ngenuineness of the transactions. By submitting the necessary documents, the\nappellant

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)

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act for more than 5 years.  Auditor’s remarks in Form 3CD were general in nature (stock register, valuation, TDS reconciliation) and did not indicate unreliability of accounts.The Statutory Auditor has given unmodified opined in the Audit reportfor the same year that Financial Statement of the assessee give a true and fair view

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

TDS even in respect of the payment made to non-resident. The ld. A/R has relied upon the decision dated 14th May, 2019 of this Tribunal in case of Satyam Polyplast vs. DCIT in ITA No. 158/JP/2019 and submitted that the Tribunal has considered an identical issue by reproducing the order of the ld. CIT (A) which is identical

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS thereon. It was further submitted that the rent was paid to one of the directors of the assessee-company who was under the “highest tax slab” and in support, copy of his tax returns were submitted which ITA No. 434/JP/2018 Morani Motors Private Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-06, 16 M/s Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

TDS. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the assessee, it is noted from the assessment order wherein the AO observed that assessee has made substantial investment in shares of group companies which as on 31.03.2016 stood at Rs.77,25,464/- whereas as on 01.04.2015 it stood at Rs.79.36,714/-. Accordingly, assessee vide show cause notice dated

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act for more\nthan 5 years.\nAuditor's remarks in Form 3CD were general in nature (stock register, valuation, TDS\nreconciliation) and did not indicate unreliability of accounts.The Statutory Auditor has\ngiven unmodified opined in the Audit reportfor the same year that Financial Statement of\nthe assessee give a true and fair view

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

PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

TDS certificates and copy of statement Bank account, cash book maintained by the assessee. d) The ITR shows the source of income of the assessee as salary from Shyamlal Panwar Anandidevi Memorial Charitable Trust and MJRP University. 3 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO e) During the demonetization period assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 31,65,000/-in the bank

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

245 to 248 and 251 to 252 of paper book. 14.2 In view of the above, there remains no ambiguity that amount of Rs. 5 crore each received from Shri Ramesh Thakor and Shri Vinod Sharma represent repayment of advances given by the assessee in the month of February 2009. Therefore the provision of section 68 will not be applicable

VIKRAM PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.14,515/- had been made, in spite of the same being pointed out to him. He also ignored the bank statements of the assessee which substantiated the salary disclosed by the assessee. While confirming the addition, he laid emphasis on a trivial issue that the Form-16 issued by the Employer is unsigned. While dismissing the appeal

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

245 (Delhi) (HC) Relevant extracts of the decision are as under:- “4. This Court is of the view that the present case is covered by the Division Bench judgment in Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT, [2015] 61 Taxmann.com 118 (Delhi), wherein it has been held that the expression 'does not form part of the total income' in Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S HANUMAN TUBE WELL CO., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

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

245 ITR 527 and CIT v/s Bhawanvapath Neverwan (Bohra) and co. (No. 2) 258 ITR 440. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. A.O. as well as ld. CIT(A) have erred both in law and facts in taxing capital gain Rs. 2,42,38,984/- from Ag. Land as income from capital

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned