SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

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)

section 263, an order shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if the order is passed without making enquiries and verification which should have been made or the order is passed allowing any relief without enquiring into the claim. 2. In the present case, the Ld. PCIT at Para

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

282 (Calcutta) (PB 161-164): The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under: 3.The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Siliguri CIT(A), after having fully agreed with the assessing officer for certain verifications. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Appeals. Sub-Section

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

282 (Calcutta) (PB 161-164): The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held as under: 3.The short question involved in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Siliguri CIT(A), after having fully agreed with the assessing officer for certain verifications. Section 251 of the Act deals with the powers of the Commissioner of Appeals. Sub-Section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

TDS, Jaipur 7.17 There are a large number of decisions of various Courts, wherein it has been held that where the employer makes a bona fide estimate of the income of the employee and deducts tax at thereon, he cannot be held to be an assessee in default under section 201.In this regard, the Bank relies on, inter alia

RAJASTHAN ADVANCE JOINT CARE TRUST,JAIPUR vs. ITO, EXEMPTION, WARD 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(3) of the Act, it clearly authorizes the AO to determine the sum payable by assessee or refund of any amount due to him on the basis of such assessment. Therefore, in our view, the assessee was clearly within his power to claim refund of excess payment of tax whether in the form of TDS

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 263 of the Act. The assessment order is set aside to be made afresh in the light of the observation made in this order. The AO is required to make necessary verification in respect of the observations made in this order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.” 5. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. PCIT

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

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

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS on managerial commission;\nIn this regard, reliance is placed on:\n243 ITR 83 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT\n“A bare reading of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, makes it\nclear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the\nCommissioner suomotu under it, is that the order of the Income Tax\nOfficer

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

TDS 9,303.00 Total 86,73,560.00 From the perusal of the above table and also as per the Interest expenses ledger (APB 68), it is evident that major portion of finance cost has being incurred on loans taken for purchasing any vehicle or equipment or real estate property for the assessee's business to the tune

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

TDS has been made u/s. 206C of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the assessee duty drawn back shown in ITR not considered. This claim of the assessee is supported by the documents placed on record, 24 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT reflected the amount in the audited accounts and the ITR filed by the assessee and therefore, we note

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

TDS. However, the said decision is only on the issue of sale Sim cards and therefore, will not applicable in the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273 as also observed in paras 85 and 86 which are reproduced as under:- “85. In that

JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

TDS deducted is only from the deposit in the Nationalized bank on which deduction u/s 80P is not allowable. 2.7 Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mis Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd Vs ACIT, 84 taxmann. 114 (SC), 2017 held that deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) would be admissible to those co-operative societies which

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, TONK

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

TDS. However, the said decision is only on the issue of sale Sim cards and 7 Shri Manoj Kumar Jain vs. ITO therefore, will not applicable in the case of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273 as also observed in paras 85 and 86 which

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

CHOCOPACK ENTERPRISES,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS. However, the said decision is only on the issue of sale Sim cards and therefore, will not applicable in the case 7 ITA 821/JP/16_ M/s Chocopack Enterprises Vs. ITO of the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Union of India 282 ITR 273 as also observed in paras

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

TDS was deducted on Interest payment. iv) On 08/11/2016, assessee had Yes, examined. There were heavy withdrawn Rs. 1.50 Lacs from receipts from cash sale and ICICI Bank and Rs. 1.10 Lacs corresponding deposit of cash in the bank from SBBJ. If the assessee really account. As on 31/12/2016, cash had cash of Rs. 1.27 Crore, he balance was just