ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

29-09-2016 thereby declaring Rs.5,49,71,640/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS. Therefore, notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 9- 09-2017 by fixing the case for hearing on 26-09-2017. Further to complete the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) alongwith questionnaire was issued through ITBA Portal

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

2,31,05,850/-. During the scrutiny assessment, the AO noted that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 27,65,853/- to Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) as testing fee on which TDS was required to be made under section 194C of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the said payment. Accordingly

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

29,002. The JCIT CIT(TDS) has subsequently levied penalty under section 271C for failure on part of the assessee bank to deduct tax on the LFC claims of its employees not eligible for exemption under section 10(5) of the Act. The limited question for consideration therefore is whether there was reasonable cause for such failure on part

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S ARIHANT TRADING CO., BHARATPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS, our attention is drawn to the fact that though the Finance Act, (N0.2) 2009 introduced, inter alia, Sec. 194C(6) and 194C(7), similar and analogous provision had been very much in existence under proviso 2 and 3 to Section 194C(3) of the Act. Placing such provisions in juxtaposition in the following chart makes it clear that they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

29 kanal and 4.25 marla or 3.63 acre. The total\namount of award comes to Rs.6397928/-. The copy of the LAC award\nis attached and annexure attached. And same was received in the year\n2006.\n3. Nature of the land:\nThe nature of the land was of urban agriculture land situated at\nRevenue Tehsil Rewari. The land was cultivated

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

TDS u/s 195 and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance so made by the AO U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is hereby deleted and ground of appeal is allowed. 18. In ground of appeal No. 2

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)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

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)

2) of Section 151 A of the Act 1961, we reach at an irresistible conclusion that the challenge to the notice under Section 148 dated 22.03.2024 for A.Y. 2021-2022 on the sole premise that the said notice could have been issued only through automated allocation in faceless manner and not by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), cannot be sustained

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section can be invoked only when the assessee is\nfound to be an owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article which is\nnot recorded in the books (if any) maintained for any source of income by the\nassessee and the assessee is not able to satisfactorily explain the source of\nacquiring such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable articles

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

29 ITR 717 (SC), the Constitution Bench has held that; (a) that the order of transfer, which was expressed in general terms without any reference to any particular case (i.e. assessment year) and without any limitation as to time, was not contemplated by section 5(7A) and was beyond the competence of the Central Board of Revenue

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i) of the Act cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur facts and circumstances of the case the disallowance made by the AO U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act is deleted. In the result, the appeal filed

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

29,35,000/- 4. May be part of @ Rs. discussion to give the 1,33,409/- work on sub contract per person or estimation or Also discussion. No where showing recorded in seized name of the documents—(as person to recorded in s.no. 84-88 whom and consider illegal payment expe.) It is unjustified were made. to mention Pool payment

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

29 of the Income Tax, 1961. Thus the Interest on late payment of TDS or any demand of interest on TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

29 of the Income Tax, 1961. Thus the Interest on late payment of TDS or any demand of interest on TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

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