SH. SWAPNIL AGARWAL,1, AGARWAL DHARAM KANTA, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER vs. ITO(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS Range, Udaipur. Based on these set of facts a show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271C

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)

274 r.w.s.271D & 271E of the Act, but not the date of proposal sent by the AO or the date of assessment order. The appellant placed reliance on the decision of High Court Of Rajasthan in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur v. Jitendra Singh Rathore (2013) 31 taxmann.com 52 (Rajasthan)/[2013] 352 ITR 327 (Rajasthan

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS deducted of Rs. 31,350/- on aggregate receipts of Rs. 2,85,311/-. It was found that that assessee company has not disclosed these receipts in its books of account for the assessment years 2011- 12, therefore an addition of Rs. 2,85,311/- is made to the total income of the assessee for undisclosed receipts. The AO mentioned

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS is shown at Rs.5,53,71,175/-. Accordingly, he held that 30% of the balance amount of Rs.3,20,28,825/-, i.e. Rs.96,08,647/- should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. It is submitted that Ld. PCIT has not properly appreciated the facts. In the Profit & Loss A/c, assessee has debited rent expenses

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

274\nread with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

274\nread with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

274\nread with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

274\nread with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

274\nread with section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act dated 23.08.2018 was issued\n(PB 9) and served upon the assessee in which the assessee was required to\nexplain as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not be imposed in the\ncase for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of excessive

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

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

274 are being initiated separately. 11. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “ Taking an over view of the sequence of events, information and evidences before the A.O, there is no doubt that the information/evidences in the possession

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

274 are being initiated separately. 11. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. “ Taking an over view of the sequence of events, information and evidences before the A.O, there is no doubt that the information/evidences in the possession

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

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

TDS provisions have not been\ncomplied properly. The president of the trust Shri Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni\nhas withdrawn huge amounts from the trust's account and utilized for\npersonal benefit. Total amounting Rs.2,52,00,000/- withdrawn by the past president, out\nof this amounting Rs. 1,08,00,000/- transferred in the account of Sh. Rajendra\nGupta

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

TDS provisions have not been\ncomplied properly. The president of the trust Shri Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni\nhas withdrawn huge amounts from the trust's account and utilized for personal\nbenefit. Total amounting Rs.2,52,00,000/- withdrawn by the past president, out\nof this amounting Rs.1,08,00,000/- transferred in the account of Sh. Rajendra\nGupta and remaining

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

274 (Guj) and decided on 20.06.2016, the parties are bound by the principle of law pronounced in the aforesaid three judgments. 4. We remit back the case to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the factual matrix. The authority will accept the law but the transaction whether it is genuine or not will be verified by the Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

274/- hence Ld. A.O. disallowed the alleged difference of Rs. 62,31,856/- invoking section 43B. In this connection we submit the detail of interest paid on term loan and copy of A/c of term loan and Bank statement of term loan evidencing payment of interest of Rs. 4,25,88,123/-. The Ld. A.O. is thus wrongly arrived

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

274/- hence Ld. A.O. disallowed the alleged difference of Rs. 62,31,856/- invoking section 43B. In this connection we submit the detail of interest paid on term loan and copy of A/c of term loan and Bank statement of term loan evidencing payment of interest of Rs. 4,25,88,123/-. The Ld. A.O. is thus wrongly arrived