DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133(6) to third parties were not served or remained unverified. However, the appellant had furnished confirmation letters and other supporting documents, including financial statements and audit reports, which were arbitrarily ignored. Ground of Appeal No. 5 The payment was made through proper banking channels, and TDS was duly deducted and deposited, proving the authenticity of the transaction

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

6) read with\nsections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section\n251(2) of I.T. Act, we come to the conclusion that the Ld. CIT(A) is not\nempowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is\nobliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Once the Assessee files

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)

250 dated 06.02.2025 by treating the fresh unsecured loan amounting to Rs. 2,01,92,401/- taken by the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 under consideration as un-explained by upholding invoking the provisions of section 68 and determining the tax demand under section 115BBE of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the submission made

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

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

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

section 133(6) of the IT Act, 1961 was called vide issue of notice dated 04.07.2016. The AO completed assessment by passing order dated 29/03/2017 u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 treating the assessee in default for (i) non/short deduction of TDS on interest payment and (ii) interest for non deduction or short deduction of TDS

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

250\nTotal\n25,56,23,509\n9.1 The assessee has submitted in the proceedings before Id.\nPCIT that for an amount of Rs. 23,09,26,263/-, it was categorically\nsubmitted that the claim of the assessee does not require to deduct\nthe tax in case of interest paid to any banking company u/s\n194A(3)(iii). Thus, TDS

MADAN LAL GUPTA ,RAMGANJ MANDI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

6,32,740/- and also claiming prepaid taxes at\nRs.1,55,590/-. However, in the return processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the\nAct dated 17.12.2023 the prepaid tax credit was allowed only to the\nextent of Rs.64,798/- and the balance tax credit of Rs.90,792/- was\ndenied. Form No. 26AS duly reflects the TDS of Rs.1

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

section 250(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the\n assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal\n:-\n\"1. Under the facts and circumstances the ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the\nassessment proceedings against the SBBJ (A non-existent). The action of the ld. AO\nis illegal and therefore deserves

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

6) shall furnish, to the prescribed income-tax authority or the person authorised by it, such particulars, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed. Explanation. For the purposes of this section, - (i) "specified person" shall mean,- (a) the Central Government or any State Government, or (b) any local authority, or (c) any corporation established

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)

6,96,12,33,525/- under provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The case was taken up for scrutiny. In view of specified domestic transactions, a Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. reference under section 92CA was made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). The TPO passed an order under section 92CA(3) dated 25.10.2017 of the Act proposing various upward

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

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

250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub- section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section 133A (6) empowered the Income Tax Authority to record the statement on oath, therefore the recording of statement u/s 131 in this case was not ultra-vires. 6 Whether facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating the in other important fact that during the assessment proceedings of the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. MAN MOHAN KRISHNA, ALWAR

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “ the Act”). The matter pertains to assessment year 2019-20. 2 ACIT Vs. Man Mohan Krishna 2. Vide impugned order, Learned CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, and thereby set aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A

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)

250 dated 24.03.2025 and dismissed the appeal, which was received by the Appellant Company on or around 25.03.3035 through the registered email address. 5. That our consultant Advocate Dinesh Sharma initially opined that since the CIT (A) had dismissed the appeal as “not seriously pursued” rather than on merits, there might be scope for filing revision u/s 264 before

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) along with query letter dated 05.10.2019, 24.11.2019, 14.12.2019 were issued and duly served

MADAN LAL CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-7(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

250 has been passed in his case in\nJanuary, 2024. he was advised to file appeal before ITAT. Being\naggrieved by the said order he requested the undersigned to file the\nappeal. The undersigned logged into the assessee's account and\ndownloaded the appellate order, after obtaining the efiling password\nfrom his ex-AR, and filed the appeal. The assessee