M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

246 or section 246A, and the\nCommissioner (Appeals) passes the order on or after the 1st day of June, 2003 disposing of\nsuch appeal, an order imposing penalty shall be passed before the expiry of the financial\nyear in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for imposition of penalty has\nbeen initiated, are completed, or within

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

246 or an appeal to the Tribunal under section 253, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from the end of the month in which the order of CIT(A) or, as the case

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS) and if the Legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it. Even in such a scenario it is not as if the aggrieved party is left remediless. Such aggrieved person can always approach this Court in its extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as the case

JAGDISH CHANDRA SUWALKA,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, RANGE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS)—Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010—Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010— Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

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

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

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, 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

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

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

246 Taxman 324 (Mad.) (HC): In view of section 32(1)(iia), there is no limitation placed on assessee in claiming balance additional depreciation in assessment year which follows assessment year in which machinery has been bought and used for less than 180 days. As a matter of fact, with effect from 01.04.2016, the ambiguity if any, in this regard

MAWALIYO KI DHANI DUGDH UTPADAK MAHILA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 7(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS Statement, had received contractual payments from Jaipur Zilla DudghUtpadakSahkari Sangh Ltd., amounting to Rs. 2.71,246/-. Also, as per the Assessment Order. it is seen that the ITR filed in response to Notice u/s 148 was an invalid ITR and hence, all the above transactions remained unverified. In view of the above discussion of facts and circumstances

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 and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts and circumstances of the case the disallowance made by the AO U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is deleted.” We further note that the finding of the ld. CIT (A) as decided this issue in para

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of conditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the trust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce and cater solely

SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

TDS return/statements, or that no appeal is provided for from an arbitrary order passed under section 234E. It must be noted that a right of appeal is not a matter of right but is a creature of the statute, and if the Legislature deems it fit not to provide a remedy of appeal, so be it. Even in such

SMT. SHACHI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

TDS was deducted under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act. in not considering the board Circular No. 786 dated 7th 2.1 February, 2000 [(2000)158 CTR (St) 61] issued by CBDT which 2 Smt. Shachi Agarwal vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax was withdrawn vide Circular No. 7 of 22nd October, 2009 and as such, commission paid

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

TDS not applicable Total 3,82,03,413 10 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT Add : IND AS adjustments 10,69,246 Add : Bank charges paid as processing fee 15,35,737 to banks Total interest paid as per Balance sheet 4,08,08,396 and shown in ITR schedule P&I IND as AT s.No.43(iii) In the order

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

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, TDS, AJMER

In the result, we confirm the order of ld

TDS not Shortfall client customer/ credited during on the made on client the F.Y. 2009- 10 (if above Rs. interest, if interest 1,60,000/-) due to any Form No. 15G/H 1 Shree Ganesh Utsav AAFTS0809Q Rs. 1,90,988/- Rs. 95/- 15G Rs. 19,004/- Praband and Sewa Samiti Shanta Devi Sharma CXJPS9738P

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.

TDS of Rs.56,122/- u/s 194A and self assessment tax of Rs.7,230/- u/s 140A of IT Act, 1961 though shown in 26AS of assessee pertaining to relevant AY and the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not giving any finding thereon. 4. That the AO has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances