ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

279/-.\n18. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee\nopenly admitted that the issue raised in ground no. 3 is already\ncovered against the assessee in it’s own case vide order of this\ndivision Bench of Jaipur Tribunal for AY 2014-15 vide order dated\n07-08-2023 (ITA 152/JP/2023).\n19. On the other hand

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

279/-. 18. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee openly admitted that the issue raised in ground no. 3 is already covered against the assessee in it’s own case vide order of this division Bench of Jaipur Tribunal for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 07-08-2023 (ITA 152/JP/2023). 19. On the other hand

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

279/-. 18. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee openly admitted that the issue raised in ground no. 3 is already covered against the assessee in it’s own case vide order of this division Bench of Jaipur Tribunal for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 07-08-2023 (ITA 152/JP/2023). 19. On the other hand

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

279/-. 18. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee openly admitted that the issue raised in ground no. 3 is already covered against the assessee in it’s own case vide order of this division Bench of Jaipur Tribunal for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 07-08-2023 (ITA 152/JP/2023). 19. On the other hand

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

279/-.\n18. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee openly admitted that the issue raised in ground no. 3 is already covered against the assessee in it’s own case vide order of this division Bench of Jaipur Tribunal for AY 2014-15 vide order dated 07-08-2023 (ITA 152/JP/2023).\n19. On the other hand

ITO(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 “4” of Act further defines what is “CONSORTIUM MEMBER” what is AOP & features of consortium arrangement & what is not AOP etc. (Refer circular no. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016) copy as enclosed. (Page 1) Thus till it is not established that such VAN SURAKSHA AND PRABHANDAN SAMITI (VFPMC) are AOP or not or are only “MUTUAL CONCERNS” & thus has basic charge

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 “4” of Act further defines what is “CONSORTIUM MEMBER” what is AOP & features of consortium arrangement & what is not AOP etc. (Refer circular no. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016) copy as enclosed. (Page 1) Thus till it is not established that such VAN SURAKSHA AND PRABHANDAN SAMITI (VFPMC) are AOP or not or are only “MUTUAL CONCERNS” & thus has basic charge

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 “4” of Act further defines what is “CONSORTIUM MEMBER” what is AOP & features of consortium arrangement & what is not AOP etc. (Refer circular no. 7/2016 dated 07.03.2016) copy as enclosed. (Page 1) Thus till it is not established that such VAN SURAKSHA AND PRABHANDAN SAMITI (VFPMC) are AOP or not or are only “MUTUAL CONCERNS” & thus has basic charge

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

TDS is laid down in Rule 37BA. The same is extracted as under: [Credit for tax deducted at source for the purposes of section 199. 37BA. (1) Credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII, shall be given to the person to whom payment has been made

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

279 –Rs. 42,89,390) under section 244A(1)of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) vide order dated 13 October 2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant by following the decision of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, in IT Appeal No. 205 of 2004 dated

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS made by the appellant payer, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). And in the Act also there is an amendment of Sec. 40(a)(ia) and u/s 201(1) in the finance Act 2012 which provides Second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced with effect from 1st April 2013, provides, that " where an 33 Shri

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

TDS) JP. (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that\nif two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred.\nReliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax VI KY\nPillah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

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

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)

279 16 NIMIT AGARWAL 78,964 Son NISHA MAHESHWARI 17 1,69,000 18.01.2017 285 18 N.K. JEWELLERS 25,000 15.05.2016 286 19 RAJ KUMARI JAIN 1,57,500 10.01.2020 288 20 RAM NARAIN GATTANI HUF 1,45,625 13.03.2018 289 21 ROOPA KHIPAL 1,50,000 12.07.2018 292 22 S.D INTERNATIONAL 5,37,500 06.08.2019 294 23 SHANTI

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961- undisclosed investments (Burden of proof)- whether where except statement of director of assessee-company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961- undisclosed investments (Burden of proof)- whether where except statement of director of assessee-company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961- undisclosed investments (Burden of proof)- whether where except statement of director of assessee-company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961- undisclosed investments (Burden of proof)- whether where except statement of director of assessee-company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961- undisclosed investments (Burden of proof)- whether where except statement of director of assessee-company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made