SUBHASH CHAND NAWAL (HUF),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

TDS return/statements within the prescribed time in sub-section (3) of section 200. The fee prescribed is Rs.200/- for every

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

3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section

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

3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 194C(6) of the Act. Regarding non filing of 3 ACIT, Bharatpur Vs. M/s Arihant Trading Co. Pahari, Bharatpur TDS

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

section 133A of I.T. Act, 1961 has himself stated that a contract of Rs. 7,35,00,000/- has been awarded to him by RIICO. The relevant paragraphs of the statement are being reproduced here:- “iz’u&2 vki D;k dk;Z djrs g S? mŸkj& eSa Civil Contractor gwWA eSa lM+d cukus dk dk;Z djrk gwWA

M/S WORLD TRADE PARK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty levied in 3 cases is hereby directed to be deleted subject to verification of payment of taxes along with fee and interest

TDS statement. As per the sub-section 3 of section 271H, where the assessee after paying the taxes along with

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

3, claiming a TDS of Rs.2,33,682/- under various sections. However while processing ITR under section 143(1) a demand

THE RAILWAY EMPLOYEE'S CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS. As regards the interest paid to the Ajmer Cooperative Thrift Saving Society, the AO allowed the same as eligible for deduction under section 80P and, therefore, though the said amount was considered under section 201 but benefit of section 80P was allowed by the AO. Thus the interest paid to non-member individual of Rs. 3

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 40A(3). Ground No. 4 That the assesse provided all relevant documents confirmations to prove genuineness creditworthiness and identity of creditor hence the addition made treating the same as purchase as bad in law and hence no further addition in respect of other disallowance can be made Had the learned Assessing Officer had not made addition u/s 68 which

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

TDS was neither required to be deducted under Section 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under Section 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue. 3

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

TDS and the interest expenditure was accepted by the AO as a genuine claim in the assessment framed under section 143(3

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 the AO has briefly stated relevant facts and some of excerpts are reproduced as under:- "13. Non deduction of TDS: From the discrepancies mentioned by the Auditor at pointed at serial No. 6 of the audit report (From No. 10B) that the assessee trust has not deducted TDS or short TDS was deducted

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

TDS and given that, the assessee’s contention that there are no written/verbal contracts has been rightly rejected by the AO and provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has been rightly invoked. Regarding cash payment and violation of section 40A(3

RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

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

3) can be reasonably applied in the present case even though the proceedings are initiated in context of section 206C relating to default in collection of TCS in absence of specific limitation provisions provided under section 206C of the Act. 19. Even though the provisions of section 201 and section 206C are separate and independent provisions, the nature

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked. Further reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench given in the case of M/s M.C. Sharma Associates & consultants (P) Ltd. ITA NO 1028/JP/2011 (APB 24-27). In the circumstance it is humbly prayed that the disallowance of Rs. 3