DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

1)(vii) so as to bring it to tax under fiction created by deeming provisions section 9. ACIT,Mumbai Vs. PahilajralJaikishin(2016) 66 taxmann.com 30(Mumbai-Trib.) (d) Commission payment made by assessee to commission agents outside India for procuring export orders could not be brought to tax in India and as a consequence, TDS was not deductible. Apsara Silk

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

iii)\nin holding that the Assessee is carrying our non-genuine activities.\n(iv) in invoking Section 40A(3) against the Appellant.\n9.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, amend and modify all or any ground of appeal\non or before the date of hearing.\"\n3.\nSuccinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is thatin the case

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Late payment of TDS) - Whether amount of TDS is not income tax for assessee but it is amount of income tax deducted and paid by assessee on behalf of third party - Held, yes - Whether thus, said expenditure incurred by assessee is wholly and exclusively for purpose

BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL,KISHANGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n20/02/2024

iii) Women Light the World (though FOBC)\neducation service fee received for correspondence course are outside the ambit of foreign\ncontribution.\nThe Ld. CIT (Exemp) has treated these educational services as liable to FCRA in\nhis own presumption, in complete disregard of the facts of the case and applicable\nlaw in respect thereof.\nvi.Please also note that owing to some

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

26,264 made to Indian Banks, no TDS was deducted on account\nof specific exclusion contained in Section 194A(3)(iii) which enumerates\nthe exemptions from deduction of TDS from interest payments. The\npayment of Interest was made to the foreign branches of the following\nIndian Banks:\n■State Bank of India: Exemption to deduct TDS on the payment

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

section\n43B(e) of the Act, such interest can be allowed only when it is\npaid before the due date for filing ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act. As\nper clause 26(i)(B) (a) the amount of interest on bank loans paid\n4\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\nbefore the due date

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

26-04-2018 from Saket Gems (HK) Limited\nworked at the Hong Kong office of the Company, basis of work\ndone as per below:-\na. The Humble Appellant have rich experienced in Production &\nQuality Control & Sorting of Gems Stones since last several\nyears. Thus the company decided to given the remuneration.\nThat the Humble Appellant have submitted the Copy

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As\nper the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students.\n2.\nThe AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit\ncard bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of\nRs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

TDS 24,63,929 72,93,236 97,57,165 Net Amount 1,64,92,993 4,92,82,848 6,57,75,841 Thus, reducing such amount of interest debited to their account of Rs. 6.58Cr. the effective actual interest free advances to the subsidiaries stood as to Rs.6.34

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

TDS 24,63,929 72,93,236 97,57,165 Net Amount 1,64,92,993 4,92,82,848 6,57,75,841 Thus, reducing such amount of interest debited to their account of Rs. 6.58Cr. the effective actual interest free advances to the subsidiaries stood as to Rs.6.34

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

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. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

TDS should have been deducted u/s 195. Since the so called service provider has been credited the amount from the freight commission of Rs.66,90,497/- received by the assessee company. Such as the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Further, CBDT’s Circular No.7/2009 dated

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

26(i)(B)(a) speaks of the payment\nof the statutory dues only and apparently does not include outstanding\ninterest payment to the bank relating to clause (e) of section 43B of the\nAct.\n(v) The reply of the assessee is not fully acceptable and requires further\nverification. The AO, while finalizing the fresh assessment shall take\nnote

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)

III is 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 action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later. In the last category, filing of appeal in respect of order passed