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

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

3)", "Section 144B", "Section 263", "Section 194A", "Section 195", "Section 115BBD", "Section 90(2)"], "issues": "1. Whether the PCIT correctly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether TDS

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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS u/s. 194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered u/s. 13(3

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS not eligible for\ndeduction under Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37 [“Issue No. 2"].\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed. [\"Issue No. 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

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3), Bangalore [2009] 34 SOT 180\n(Bangalore) held that “Section 6 of the Income-tax\nAct,\n1961\n- Residential status Assessment year 2005-06\nAssessee, a citizen of India, was an employee of IBM\nGlobal Services India (P.) Ltd. On 23-1-2004, employer\nissued a deputation letter to assessee and he was directed\nto work with designated

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

TDS) u/s 206C(6)/206C(7) within time line with the limitation period of seven years as defined under section 201(3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

TDS) u/s 206C(6)/206C(7) within time line with the limitation period of seven years as defined under section 201(3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S EID MOHAMMAD NIZAMUDDIN , TONK

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

TDS) u/s 206C(6)/206C(7) within time line with the limitation period of seven years as defined under section 201(3

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

3) of the section 234E of the Act states that it shall be paid before delivering a TDS statement. It means

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 143(3) of the Act on 23.02.2018 by making various disallowances/additions to the returned income of the assessee as under :- - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on power undertakings on account of transfer pricing adjustment of power (Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/-, - Reduction in claim u/s 80IA on Solid Waste Management System on account of transfer pricing adjustment

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA no

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

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

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