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

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee.” Reliance in this regard could also be placed on the following decisions: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs DCIT (TDS) (Special Bench) 2009- TIOL

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should be enforced after the deductor has satisfied the officer in charge of TDS that taxes have been paid by the deductee- assessee.” Reliance in this regard could also be placed on the following decisions: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. 1. Mahindra & Mahindra Limited vs DCIT (TDS) (Special Bench) 2009- TIOL

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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)

288 CTR (SC) 244 is misleading as Honourable Court has rightly reiterated the provisions of section 275(1)(c) and there is nothing in the order to draw inference in favour of the appellant. 5 Isys Softech Private Limited vs. ITO It is further observed that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was passed well within the limitation period

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

288 ITR 345 (Delhi) deleted the addition on the ground that there was violation of\nthe principles of natural justice.\n1.12\nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (CIVIL APPEAL NO.\n4228 OF 2006)held that “...not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the\nAdjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

288 CTR 0682 (Kar)  CIT (TDS) v/s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. (2012) 250 CTR 0113 (HP)  CIT (TDS) v/s C.J. International Hotels Pvt. Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 0684 (Del)  Tata Teleservices Vs. Union of India, (2016) 66 taxmann.com 157 (Guj.) 2.5. The law is well settled thattheprovisions prescribing time must be strictly interpreted by the Hon’ble Apex Court

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

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

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

288 and the person in receipt of the income furnishes along with the return of income for the relevant assessment year the report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed; 4. In view of Section 12A(1)(b), the assessee was required to furnish

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGMITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred

M/S BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LTD.,OFFICE NO.2 & 3, 7TH FLOOR, MAN UPASANA PLAZA, C-44, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

section 194C or any other TDS provision is not attracted on the reimbursement of actual expenses. Further, RWPL has deducted tax at source on the salary paid to its employees deputed with the assessee and on other expenditure for which it sought M/s Barmer Lignite Mining Company Ltd. reimbursement by raising debit note for the actual expenditure incurred