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

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

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

272/- which is allowable in view of the explanation 5 to section 43(1) of the Act and accordingly was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 5.1 Further, the assessee has wrongly claimed interest paid of Rs.66,466/- on TDS

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

272/- which is allowable in view of the explanation 5 to section 43(1) of the Act and accordingly was disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 5.1 Further, the assessee has wrongly claimed interest paid of Rs.66,466/- on TDS

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 was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

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)

272/- and added it to the total income of the assessee. On perusal of Profit & Loss account, the AO observed that the assessee had claimed interest expenses on late payment of TDS. In reply to the notice under section

MILLENIUM BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands partly allowed with no 6

TDS), Kota squarely applicable in this case. The relevant para of the decision of Pune Bench is reproduced as under:- ‘’7. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessee had paid interest to BHR. The Business of BHR is banking. Section 194A(3)(iii)(a) provides that

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

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

272/- and added it\nto the total income of the assessee. On perusal of Profit & Loss account, the AO\nobserved that the assessee had claimed interest expenses on late payment of TDS.\nIn reply to the notice under section

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on managerial commission;\nIn this regard, reliance is placed on:\n243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT\n“A bare reading of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it\nclear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the\nCommissioner suomotu under it, is that the order of the Income Tax\nOfficer

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

TDS was deducted on Interest payment. iv) On 08/11/2016, assessee had Yes, examined. There were heavy withdrawn Rs. 1.50 Lacs from receipts from cash sale and ICICI Bank and Rs. 1.10 Lacs corresponding deposit of cash in the bank from SBBJ. If the assessee really account. As on 31/12/2016, cash had cash of Rs. 1.27 Crore, he balance was just

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

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

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

TDS DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED @ 1% U/S 194IA TOTAL 10822354/- 962681/- 11785035/- 1.6 Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer ignored the genuine difficulties of the assessee and, held that assessee has failed in depositing the unused amount by 31/07/2016 in `Capital Gains Account Scheme’ 13 Indira Giri vs. ITO (CGAS) and considered the payment of Rs. 28 Lacs only as eligible

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS\n9,303.00\nTotal\n86,73,560.00\nFrom the perusal of the above table and also as per the Interest\nexpenses ledger (APB 68), it is evident that major portion of finance\ncost has being incurred on loans taken for purchasing any vehicle or\nequipment or real estate property for the assessee's business to the\ntune

LATE SH. SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THROUGH L/H SMT. NIKITA DHARIWAL,DHARIWAL BHAWAN, SHASTRI MARKET, KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS of Rs. 2,42,339/- allowed in the processing of return / claimed in the return.’’ 2.1 Besides the above mentioned grounds of appeal in respective assessment years (supra), the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 03-03-2023 prayed for LATE SHRI SHEKHAR DHARIWAL THRU: L/H SMT NIKITA DHARIWAL VS ITO, WARD-2(2), KOTA admission