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

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)

section 275(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee would finally like to place reliance on the decisions of jurisdictional ITAT, Jaipur, wherein the penalty levied u/s 271D has been deleted on legal issue of the same getting time barred, without going into the merits of the case- (i) Ram Kishan Verma vs. Addl. CIT in ITA No.405/JP/2019 (ii) Jagdish

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

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

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)

c) of the Act is hereby separately initiated for fumishing inaccurate particulars of income. (A)-Addition of Rs 1,17,147/-) Gold: - 7.2 On examination of other details of sales promotion expense, it has been noticed that the assessee debited expenses of Gold of Rs. 1,27.08.275/- in P&L account. In response, notice u/s 142(1

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

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

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)

c) The VAT return further discloses transfer of goods within or outside the state otherwise than sales are of Rs 400.95 crores. It means, the eligible unit was, mainly involved in the activities of inter unit transfers of goods. It may be seen that if the claims of the assessee in form 10CCB are accepted than it shows

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

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

C’ in case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax versus Ganpati Enterprises Ltd. IT Appeal No. 6112 Delhi) of 2012 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10] Date of pronouncement – 15.02.2013 held that in our opinion the Scheme of the Act does not authorize the Assessing Officer to make a disallowance according to his wishes, rather it provide that he should first point

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

TDS\nwas deducted there on\". From this it is also further corroborated that\nfigure of 2.4% as found in the seized pen drive pertains to extra interest\nhowever the argument of the assesse that the additional interest was\nnot paid has not been specifically accepted by the Hon'ble ITAT on\nmerits.\n5.8 On page 122 of the order

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