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

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, 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

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

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

248-252 of CLPB] and Para B.1.10.14, B.1.10.15 and D.3.7.1 of United Nations Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries, 2017 (‘UN Manual’) [Page no. of 240-244 of CLPB] wherein concept of location savings and its allocation among the MNE group has been recognised.\n4.2 Further, reliance is placed on Para 1.109 of the OECD Guidelines

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

248-252 of CLPB] and Para B.1.10.14, B.1.10.15 and D.3.7.1 of United Nations Practical Manual on Transfer Pricing for Developing Countries, 2017 (‘UN Manual’) [Page no. of 240-244 of CLPB] wherein concept of location savings and its allocation among the MNE group has been recognised. 4.2 Further, reliance is placed on Para 1.109 of the OECD Guidelines

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

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

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

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

RADHA GOVIND BUILDESTATE P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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

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

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

SHRI SURENDRA GAJRAJ ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1018/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cuke Surendra Gajraj, I.T.O., F-132 C, Road No. 12, Vki Area, Vs. Ward- 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abypg 2156 Q Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 194H. That we have already submitted Copy of ITR & Copy of Computation of Total Income of Shri Vikram Singh Kulhari, Shri Rameshwar Singh & M/s. Surendra Gajraj HUF told AO. It would be observed that the said person have surrendered the income of Commission & paid the due taxes. Thus Double Taxation cannot be levied (kindly Refer Page