INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part

GEETA STAR HOTELS & RESORTS P LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

268 and has adjudicated the issue relating to whether the fees charged is legal or illegal and has upheld the constitutional validity of levy of fess u/s 234E. The Court has not touched upon the mechanism to levy the fees u/s 234E in the TDS Statement processed u/s 200A. Thus, CIT(A) has erred in interpreting the decision

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative tally of opening stock and purchases with sales and closing stock, the best course to follow would be to reject the book results

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative tally of opening stock and purchases with sales and closing stock, the best course to follow would be to reject the book results

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

268 (Cuttack - Trib.): Head note “..Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to answer question, sign statements, etc. [Delay in filing e-TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ITA No. 975/JP/2017 is partly allowed for statistical

TDS and observing that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) made by the finance Act 2010 was retrospective in nature.” 2. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of both these appeals are on the same issue wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for depositing the employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ITA No. 975/JP/2017 is partly allowed for statistical

TDS and observing that amendment to section 40(a)(ia) made by the finance Act 2010 was retrospective in nature.” 2. Grounds No. 1 and 2 of both these appeals are on the same issue wherein the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for depositing the employees contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

TDS, Jaipur • Eicher Goodearth Ltd. (ITA 1305/Del/1991) (Delhi ITAT). • KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (62 ITJ 268) (Delhi ITAT). 7.19 It was reiterated that it was the bona fide belief of the Bank that it was not liable to deduct tax at source in respect of LTC provided to employees. In other words, the Bank had deducted appropriate tax at source

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S GUNESH INDIA PVT.LTD.JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

TDS return and looking to the number of vehicles involved it is very cumbersome exercise. Thus, for the sole reason of reducing the compliance burden at the end of the assessee, it has appointed some of its employees as sub contractors, who were individuals and in most cases, were not liable to deduct tax at source (being not subject

M/S GANESH (INDIA)PVT.LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

TDS return and looking to the number of vehicles involved it is very cumbersome exercise. Thus, for the sole reason of reducing the compliance burden at the end of the assessee, it has appointed some of its employees as sub contractors, who were individuals and in most cases, were not liable to deduct tax at source (being not subject

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

268 intermediary/beneficiary concerns maintained with UCO Bank, 30 cash deposit bank accounts were identified. Departmental Inspectors were deputed to serve notice u/s 131 on the address of above companies requesting furnishing of books of accounts, details of bank accounts, copies of Kedia Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur ITR and other documents, but the same could not be served

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

TDS defaults. The Apex Court\nemphasized that tax authorities must verify the deductee's tax payments before declaring\nthe deductor as an assessee-in-default. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Nestle\nIndia Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 682 (Del HC) further reinforced this principle, ruling that an\norder under Section 201 must be preceded by an inquiry

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

268(P&H) Association of Corporation & Apex Societies of Handlooms v/s ADIT 351 ITR 287(Del) Raghavan Nair vs. ACIT 402 ITR 0400 (Ker) (2018) 3.6. The ld. Pr. CIT stated that if a person fails to get audited his books of accounts from a chartered accountant, then he will not able to get benefit of section

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS) perquisite in form of rent free accommodation in salary due to bonafide belief, which itself shows that assessee is law abiding and not having contumacious conduct, hence penalty should not be sustained. In this regard, I further place our reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Comm. of Income Tax Vs. Bank of Nova

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS) perquisite in form of rent free accommodation in salary due to bonafide belief, which itself shows that assessee is law abiding and not having contumacious conduct, hence penalty should not be sustained. In this regard, I further place our reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Comm. of Income Tax Vs. Bank of Nova

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed