SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 1941, not 1940", notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is a Kachha Adhatiya (Commission Agent) and registered with Baran- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, accordingly shown Adat/Commission as gross receipt in the return of income and consequently erred in confirming disallowance of credit of TDS, u/s 194H & 194Q amounting to Rs. 2,62,264

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)

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, and in a case where the interest is reduced, the Assessing Officer shall serve

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)

TDS)—Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010—Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010— Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

JV OF KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD. & ELIOP,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. 711/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jv Of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Eliop, Ward-4(2), B-141, Road No. 9D, Vki Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaaaj 5853 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 01/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Matter, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- Made By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On Contract Receipts Of Rs.14,87,10,667/- Arbitrarily. 1.1 That, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Upholding Addition By Completely Ignoring The Submission Made By Assessee & Evidences Adduced. The Addition Confirmed Are Solely Based On Conjectures & Surmises. Appellant Thus Prays That Such Addition Being Most Arbitrary, Unjust, Untenable & Bad In Law, Deserve To Be Deleted. 1.2. That, Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- By Disregarding The Submission Of Assessee That Entire

section 264, application can be filed by the assessee within a period of one year from the communication of order in question. In the present case, since no order was passed in the case of M/s KIEL, thus there was no occasion with M/s KIEL to file any petition u/s 264. Further the appellant has the option of filing

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)

TDS)--Accordingly, six months from the end of the month in which the action for imposition of penalty was initiated expired on 30th June, 2010--Hence, the order imposing penalty under s. 271C could have been passed on or before 30th June, 2010-- Therefore, order levying penalty under s. 271C passed by the Addl. CIT on 18th

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)

264 before the PCIT. 6. That since our counsel Advocate Dinesh Sharma was not properly responding about the rate of our case, we approached CA Om Prakash Rupani on 29.07.2025 to advice in the matter. He, thereafter checked the status of our case and suggested to file an appeal before ITAT^ with application for condonation of delay. 7. That

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

264 before the PCIT.\n6. That since our counsel Advocate Dinesh Sharma was not properly responding about\nthe rate of our case, we approached CA Om Prakash Rupani on 29.07.2025 to advice\nin the matter. He, thereafter checked the status of our case and suggested to file an\nappeal before ITAT^ with application for condonation of delay.\n7. That

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

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)

TDS and to introduce the unaccounted money through bogus sales. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that the retail showroom at Jodhpur is approximately 1600 sq. feet in size and it is spread over three stories and there are approximately 9 to 10 employees besides the MOU correspondence. It has also been submitted that there is one billing counter

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,CHURU vs. ITO TDS-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on 'merits'. The expression sufficient cause' employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice-that being the life-purpose

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)

264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) iii. iSona Electric Co. v/s. CIT 152 ITR 507 (Delhi) iv. Tam Tam Pedda Guruna Reddy v/s. JCIT 291 ITR 44 (Kar.) In the case of M/s. Capaxo Logistics Pvt Ltd. ‘’14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly the assessee has received amount

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA vs. MOTION EDUCATION PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the\ncross objection of the assessee are allowed

TDS) [2023] 154 taxmann.com 465 (SC) passed order as under-\nORDER\n1. Delay condoned.\n2. Leave granted.\nThis two sentence order establishes the application of mind of Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt of India. The application of mind is the whole process through which the all\nthe facts and questions of law has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court\nand

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section\n271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by\nassessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in\nbalance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of\nassessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non-\ndeposit of same with Government, Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) in respect of aforesaid two issues - As regards amount received by assessee as advance, Tribunal found that since said amount had been shown in balance sheet annexed to original return, there was no intention on part of assessee to conceal - With regard to disallowance qua TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal