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)

TDS was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

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

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is read as retrospective in ITA No. 175/JP/16 M/s Morani Fourwheels Pvt. Ltd,Jaipur Vs. ACIT Circle-6,Jaipur nature and will thus be applicable in the instant case. In light of the above discussion, we set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the claim

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 has not been deducted as its not applicable. (13,43,475). Thus, as provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 30% of above two items Le. 30% of Rs.24.19.595/- which comes to Rs.7.25,878/- is disallowed and added to total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A for underreporting of income initiated separately. (Addition

ITO (TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS order is concerned, assessee filed detailed reply before the AO and also before the appellant authority. The submission of the assessee on such payment is reproduced at Pg 11-17 of the appellate order. On such payment, either section 194C is not applicable or such payment is beyond the threshold limit prescribed u/s 194C or the assessee has furnished

ITO(TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS order is concerned, assessee filed detailed reply before the AO and also before the appellant authority. The submission of the assessee on such payment is reproduced at Pg 11-17 of the appellate order. On such payment, either section 194C is not applicable or such payment is beyond the threshold limit prescribed u/s 194C or the assessee has furnished

ITO (TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS order is concerned, assessee filed detailed reply before the AO and also before the appellant authority. The submission of the assessee on such payment is reproduced at Pg 11-17 of the appellate order. On such payment, either section 194C is not applicable or such payment is beyond the threshold limit prescribed u/s 194C or the assessee has furnished

ITO (TDS) ALWAR, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABA MOHAN RAMJI KALIKHOLI WALAMILKPUR GURJAR, ALWAR

9. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals filed by the department deserve to be dismissed

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS order is concerned, assessee filed detailed reply before the AO and also before the appellant authority. The submission of the assessee on such payment is reproduced at Pg 11-17 of the appellate order. On such payment, either section 194C is not applicable or such payment is beyond the threshold limit prescribed u/s 194C or the assessee has furnished

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M) AVVNL,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS statement, which can be inferred from the provisions of Sec. 204 of the Act Section 204 particularly states that “for the purposes of Sec. 190 to Sec. 203 and for Sec. 285

ASSISTANT ENGINEER (O&M) AVVNL,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

TDS statement, which can be inferred from the provisions of Sec. 204 of the Act Section 204 particularly states that “for the purposes of Sec. 190 to Sec. 203 and for Sec. 285

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

285 ITR 554 (All), CIT Vs. Radico Khaitan Ltd. (2005) 142 Taxman 681 (All.). The copy of case of is enclosed. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay high court in the case od CIT v. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

285 ITR 0435 (P&H) The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of various types of valves, cocks and boiler fittings, etc. AO invoking the provisions of section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessed its income at Rs. 2,10,63,154 which included bogus purchases to the tune

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)

285 (SC)[14-09-2021] held that assessee failed to discharge its burden in proving that there was a reasonable cause in accepting deposits from staff members in violation of section 269SS, the SLP filed by the aseessee was dismissed. The head notes of the decision read as under- "Section 269SS, read with sections 2710 and 2738, of the Income

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

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

285/- as VAT, Rs 1,35,187/- as service tax, Rs 5,02,000/- as stamp duty and Rs 30,000/- as registration charges. 17 ITA No. 744/JP/2023 Narain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b). For sake of clarity we are reproducing herein below the relevant portion of proviso “Provided that where the date

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

JV OF KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD. & ELIOP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 711/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jv Of Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. & Cuke I.T.O. Vs. Eliop, Ward-4(2), B-141, Road No. 9D, Vki Area, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aaaaj 5853 F Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 19/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 01/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Matter, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- Made By Applying Profit Rate Of 8% On Contract Receipts Of Rs.14,87,10,667/- Arbitrarily. 1.1 That, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Upholding Addition By Completely Ignoring The Submission Made By Assessee & Evidences Adduced. The Addition Confirmed Are Solely Based On Conjectures & Surmises. Appellant Thus Prays That Such Addition Being Most Arbitrary, Unjust, Untenable & Bad In Law, Deserve To Be Deleted. 1.2. That, Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Upholding Addition Of Rs.1,18,96,853/- By Disregarding The Submission Of Assessee That Entire

TDS of Rs. 30,85,720/-. Subsequently, case of assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In response to such notice, assessee furnished return of income declaring loss of Rs.550/-. Details and explanation as required by AO were furnished and assessment was completed by the AO vide order dated 27.12.2017 by assessing

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

285/- out of Consultancy expenses, arbitrarily merely\nfor the reason that the invoice for the same could not be traced. Appellant prays\nthat the expenses incurred being genuine, payment being made through banking\nchannels, thus the disallowance made, deserve to be deleted.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case Id. CIT (A) has grossly\nerred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned