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

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

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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

TDS provisions are not applicable. The issue that the expenses wholly and exclusively incurred by a pharmaceutical company in the normal course of its business towards gifts, travel facility, conference expenses or similar freebies to medical practitioners or their professional associations would not be hit by the „Explanation 1‟ to Sec. 37 of the Act, is covered by the order

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)

268 (Kerala) (DPB 23-35), it was held: “47.All the above precedents examined, we reckon that the holding of Dhirendra Nath, Onkarmal, and Bhopal Sugar Industries is unmistakable. Under the amended section 251 of the Act, the Appellate Commissioner may confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul the assessment. But he cannot refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

268\nthe reply to this question also, Shri Ashok Kumar Jain did not mention any bills or\nvouchers remaining to be entered in the books of accounts-Had any such stock\nbeen pending for incorporation in the stock register for want of purchase bills.\nShri Ashok Kumar Jain would have mentioned about the same in his statements.\nIt is noteworthy

ANURADHA KUMARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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)

268/- charged u/s 234A 2.1 At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee requested to argue Ground No. 2 firstly instead of Ground No. 1 which is legal in nature. Therefore, the Bench has allowed the ld. Counsel to argue Ground No. 2 firstly. It is noted in this ground of appeal

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

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

sections of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan\nLaw including sec. 268 and submitted that in the circumstances of the case it must be\npresumed that the three ladies were the legally wedded wives of the respondent. The law\nhas not changed since the original assessments were made and it was open to the\nIncome Tax Officer to make that presumption

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

268\nTotal\n13,09,053\nAppellant prays that disallowance was made and confirmed on presumption of\ninvolvement of personal element due to the nature of expenditure, however not\neven a single instance of personal expenses has been pointed out either by\nId.AO or Id.CIT(A) and thus the disallowance being made and confirmed merely\non suspicion, deserves to be deleted