DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

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

TDS following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Palam Gas Service and in respect of which there is no dispute. We accordingly 9 ITA No. 612/JP/17 & CO No. 32/JP/2017 DCIT Vs. M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd., jaipur do not see any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) hence, the same is confirmed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

277).” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. In this case, the assessee company has not deducted TDS at a time of credit to the Associate Business Associates (ABA) Pool account

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such (ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: 8 M/s Amrapali

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

TDS Deducted Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 1,98,282/- Nil Tata Capital Limited 4,33,221/- Nil Religares Finvest Ltd. 22,52,810/- Nil TOTAL 28,84,313/- The AO invoked the provisions of section 40a (ia) of the Act and made addition of Rs. 28,84,313/- to the income of the appellant company. (ii) During appellate proceedings

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

TDS Deducted Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 1,98,282/- Nil Tata Capital Limited 4,33,221/- Nil Religares Finvest Ltd. 22,52,810/- Nil TOTAL 28,84,313/- The AO invoked the provisions of section 40a (ia) of the Act and made addition of Rs. 28,84,313/- to the income of the appellant company. (ii) During appellate proceedings

INDER KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 4-2, JAIPUR

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

277/- , the addition of Rs. 15,62,006/- u/s 40(a)(ia), the addition of Rs.8,22,356/- u/s 68 as unexplained credit and a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of disallowance of various expenses claimed in the Profit & Loss Account. 3. Ground No.1 of the appeal was not pressed at the time of hearing

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3) as well as in the assessment framed under section 153A of the IT Act. Once the interest payment is accepted, then the loan amount cannot be treated as bogus and unexplained credit. The ld. A/R has pointed

KUMAWAT CONTRACTORS,JAIPUR vs. DIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Allowing Partner’S Salary, Interest & Depreciation.

TDS on interest of Rs. 3,54,118/- paid to Religare Finvest Ltd. which was disallowed by the AO invoking section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld CIT(A) upheld the disallowance following the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of P.M.S. Diesels Vs. CIT (2015) 277

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS return and allied work and for which annual renewal charges are paid every year by the assessee. Regarding payment to M/s Momentum Infocare Pvt Ltd, it was submitted that it relates to renewal of yearly licence pack software which is used for internal operating system and its firewall protection amount and it is paid every year. It was submitted

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same

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

KRISHNA KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS certificates pertained to the earlier year and part of the royalty payment attributed to these certificates had already been claimed and allowed as deduction to the assessee in the earlier years. Thereafter, when the assessee was further questioned, with a cryptic reply by way of the letter dated Marc 14,2005, no cogent and reliable evidence were shown

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons