ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

TDS and section 40A(3) of the Act on account of payment in cash beyond the prescribed threshold, the additions so made by the AO are hereby confirmed. 30. Regarding other expenses namely excessive/ bogus expenses amounting to Rs 2,63,189, unrecorded marble and granite purchase of Rs 98,948, unrecorded purchases/labour and transportation charges of lime amounting

BUREAU FOR PARTNERSHIPS IN RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 338/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Cuke Bureau For Partnership In Rajasthan The Acit (Cpc Tds) Vs. Society, B-Block, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-3, Yojana Bhawan, Vaishali,Ghaziabad (U.P.) Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aactb 5302 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vishal Gupta, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 19/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 20/02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) -3, Jaipur Dated 15-01-2019 Arising From The Order Of Levy Of Fees Passed U/S 200A R.W.S. 234E Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Grossly Erred In Law & Facts By Confirming The Late

Section 200(3)’’ 2.1 The ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee is a society incorporated by the order of Govt. of Rajasthan dated 3/04-03- 2015 for the reforms and restructuring of various sectors to attract private investment, to improve efficiencies, to reduce costs through public private partnership i.e. PPE etc. The assessee was a society registered under

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. The revenue relies on the phrase "shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made" to contend that the assessee's TDS claim cannot be based on the receipts of M/s REPL. However

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS, in respect of such provision for expenses. 3.5 Thus, the view adopted by the assessee company of deducting tax at source at the time of actual payment to the individual ABA and not at the time of booking of expense and crediting the ABA Pool Account was one of the plausible views. 3.8 It is to be noted that

RAJASTHAN ADVANCE JOINT CARE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Act, it clearly authorizes the AO to determine the sum payable by assessee or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment. Therefore, in our view, the assessee was clearly within his power to claim refund of excess payment of tax whether in the form of TDS

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

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80- IB of the Act. This view was taken by the Courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer-Ward

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

In the result, we confirm the order of ld

Section/ Name of Payment Rate of Short fall Default in Period for Interest Total Nature of the amount TDS of TDS respect of interest u/s 201 Intererst payment recipient short fall (1A) @ & tax of TDS 1% liability Shree Rs. 10% Rs. Rs. 96 Rs. Rs. Ganesh 1,90,988/- 19,004/- 19,004 Months 18,244/- 37,248

DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

TDS credit only to the tune of Rs.5,90,223/-, and accordingly, having regard to the fact that salary income was declared by the appellant, and in view of the provisions of section 199 read with section 37BA of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of Rs. 2,17,777/-. So far as receipt of rent

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)

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 on this

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS on the payments. Despite that he took a chance because had the case not selected for scrutiny, he would have reduced tax liability. It cannot be the case of the assessee that there was any doubt about the inadmissibility of the claim. In view of the facts that out rightly inadmissible claims were made by the appellant

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI vs. SHRI SATISH KUMAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

TDS was also deducted. It was paid to the persons, who were relatives of the assessee. It was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. It was excessive payment in view of the provisions of Section 40A of the Act. Thus, there is no clear cut finding that on what basis this payment ITA 637/JP/2017 & C.O. 33/JP/2017_

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-3, JAIPUR

section 54F, Commissioner (Appeals) could not refuse to accept said additional evidence and reject assessee's claim merely on ground that no such claim was made before Assessing Officer. • Hon'ble Chandigarh ITAT in the case of Lakshmi Energy & Foods. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2014) (44 taxmann.com 248)held that where assessee had sufficient reasons which prevented it from producing

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

section 54F, Commissioner (Appeals) could not refuse to accept said additional evidence and reject assessee's claim merely on ground that no such claim was made before Assessing Officer. • Hon'ble Chandigarh ITAT in the case of Lakshmi Energy & Foods. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (2014) (44 taxmann.com 248)held that where assessee had sufficient reasons which prevented it from producing

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

TDS) JP. (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax VI KY Pillah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

248 (SC). In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case the addition made on account of alleged profit @ 25% on the alleged sales is wrong and without any effort to verify/support the alleged sale transactions with the supporting co-gent-martial documentary evidence tenable in the eyes of law. Thus impugned addition on this account is made