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

251 which is ab initio void and fundamentally flawed action. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A grossly erred in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by sum of Rs 7,38,35,804 in perfunctory manner on preposterous basis of earlier history of books rejection and some orders

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

251 which is ab initio void and fundamentally flawed action. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A grossly erred in enhancing the income of appellant assessee by sum of Rs 7,38,35,804 in perfunctory manner on preposterous basis of earlier history of books rejection and some orders

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)

251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee

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)

251 of the Act. 2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee

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)

251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

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 under section 194H on such brokerage paid was duly deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. Moreover, payment of brokerage and Commission has also been reflected under sales and administrative expenses (Annexure-P) forming part of the audited financial statements of the appellant already available with the Income Tax Department. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this

MONIKA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 251. The appellant was under bona fide belief that due to recent amendment, it was obligatory for the CIT(A) to set aside cach & every case completed u/s 144 to file of AO and therefore appellant in distress, was waiting for initiation of set aside proceedings by the AO instead of approaching next Judicial Forum 6. That the factum

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)

section 251 of the Act.” 16 ITA No. 634 & CO. No. 7/JPR/2023 ACIT vs. Alwar Zila Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari sangh Ltd. 7. The Revenue by aggrieved from the findings of the ld. CIT(A) preferred this appeal and since the appeal of the assessee was allowed in part the assessee has also preferred the cross objection. 8. Before

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS. The same are as under :- “ The assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bharti Cellular Ltd. – On the basis of which the Hon’ble Apex Court has remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. Firstly, the matter is pending before the AO and thus the issue

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

TDS could not be discharged by the assessee, therefore, it further establishes the violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271 (I)(c) (ii) In view of the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, the additional evidences could be admitted only if the case of the assessee falls in any of the four clauses as mentioned in Sub-Rule-1 of Rule 46A. It was claimed by the AR that

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

251 or the imposition of penalty under section 271. In view of the aforesaid provisions of Rule 46A(3), the Learned CIT(A), before taking into account the additional evidences furnished by the assessee allowed an opportunity to the Learned Assessing Officer by calling a remand report. The Learned Assessing Officer submitted remand report under letter dated

RUDRAX SHINE LOGISTIC PRIVATE LIMITED,BUNDI vs. ITO WARD BUNDI, BUNDI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

TDS for some payments of various expenses. The Id. AO also erred in making the additions without invoking the provisions of Sec. 145(3) or without rejecting the books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) and AO have also erred in not considering the vital facts and material available on record in their true perspective and sense. Hence the addition

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

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

251 entries which was later reduced by 73 entries as these were relatable to payments made by cheque as per the AO. This makes it clear that the Auditor also did not carry out an in-depth investigation, maybe due to lack of proper detailing from the assessee’s side. As per the assessee’s reply, certain entries pertained

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

TDS credit 14 AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS (P) LTD VS ACIT, KOTA from this party have been duly considered in a different year. This ground is considered allowed for statistical purpose. 5.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee filed following detailed written submission praying therein to delete the impugned addition. Submissions: 1. CIT (A) cannot

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

Section 250 r.w.s. 251 of the IT Act. The CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the appeal as there is no allegation that delay in filing the appeal is mala fide or it is deliberate, rather it is bona fide based on reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It is further submitted that an assessee

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred