M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS 1,44,565 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.1,41,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 71,75,575/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1), penalty could have been\nimposed on or before 31.03.2018. Further order of Hon'ble ITAT is dt. 10.04.2018\nand therefore penalty could have been imposed within 6 months from the end of\nthe month in which the order of ITAT is received by the Commissioner which\nexpires on 31.10.2018. In the present case, once the order

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)

Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, in the substantial interest of justice, we set aside the ex parte order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issue afresh on merits. The assessee is also directed to appear before the ld. CIT(A) within two months

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 275(1)(c) and therefore independent of any assessment order through which the penalty might have been initiated. Therefore, the cited court case of Pr.CIT Vs. Mahesh Wood Products Pvt. Ltd. (2017)394 ITR 312 (Del) is not applicable to the fact of the instant case. The appellant has raised the issue of reasonable cause for failure to deduct

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

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

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

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

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

275 where the Court noted as follows: "In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director

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)

section 37 of the Act of the Act so discussed supra is as under. - (A)+(B)+(C)+ (D)+(E)+(F) + (G)=1,17,147+1,27,08,275 +65,392+4,61,524 + 28,500+24,451 +17,56,681-1.51.61,950/- 5.1.2 In this regard, out of submission of the appellant (reproduced entirely in Para no 4 supra), following

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)

275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy of assessment order for AY 2017-18 is at PB page 241-246/Vol-2. It is worthwhile to mention the investment in MF/Equities as on 31/03/2017

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 on payment of rent (v) Inadmissible claim of club fees (vi) Under-reporting of scrap sale (vii) Anomaly in deduction claimed u/s 80-IC 3. It is submitted that there is no delay in deposit of employee’s contribution to PF as explained before the PCIT (Pg 9-11 of the order) and explained with reference to Ground No.2

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS on payment made to residents as specified in section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed.” From the above it can be noted that amendment made by Finance Act 2014 is to remove unintended and undue hardship and therefore this amendment should be give retrospective effect

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275 of LT. Act. The ground is adjudicated accordingly. Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had made payment to Eco Development Committees (EDCs) for civil construction work, without deducting tax at source. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, held that the appellant was liable to deduct

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275 of LT. Act. The ground is adjudicated accordingly. Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had made payment to Eco Development Committees (EDCs) for civil construction work, without deducting tax at source. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, held that the appellant was liable to deduct

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275 of LT. Act. The ground is adjudicated accordingly. Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had made payment to Eco Development Committees (EDCs) for civil construction work, without deducting tax at source. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, held that the appellant was liable to deduct

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275 of LT. Act. The ground is adjudicated accordingly. Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had made payment to Eco Development Committees (EDCs) for civil construction work, without deducting tax at source. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, held that the appellant was liable to deduct

DY.CONSERVATOR OF FOREST DAUSA,DAUSA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, ALWAR

In the results appeal of the

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

Section 275 of LT. Act. The ground is adjudicated accordingly. Dy. Conservator of Forest Dausa vs. ITO, TDS 5.2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant had made payment to Eco Development Committees (EDCs) for civil construction work, without deducting tax at source. The Income Tax Officer, TDS, held that the appellant was liable to deduct