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

2(3), Alwar “Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 1.1: Under these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs,28,40,000/- , being Sales Promotion Expenses paid to foreign agent by alleging that assessee has failed to deduct TDS on such payment as per provisions of 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(7) have to be read together to extend the immunity from 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

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS return/statements within the prescribed time in sub-section (3) of section 200. The fee prescribed is Rs.200/- for every day during which the failure continues. Sub-section (2

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

2,18,50,444/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) on account of alleged non deduction of TDS. 8.1 At the time of passing of assessment order u/s 147/148 r.w.s.143(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

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 day during which the failure continues. Sub- section (2

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.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA(3

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2. Against the work performed certain payments (having nature of contractual payments etc.) from F.Y. 2016-17 to F.Y. 2018-19 have been paid by various payers. 3. On impugned payments, TDS u/s 194C/194D/194H of the Income Tax Act have been deducted by the payers entities. 4. As such, the applicant is receiving contractual receipts/insurance commission/ commission payments. Hence, impugned

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

2,83,18,907 3. M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 1,30,00,000 Total 6,26,90,957 In this regard, at the outset it is submitted that the search in the case of alleged Praveen Jain &Bhanwar Lal Jain group, was conducted on October, 2013, whereas captioned purchase bills pertain to F. Y. 2011-12 and thus

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

2,83,18,907 3. M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 1,30,00,000 Total 6,26,90,957 In this regard, at the outset it is submitted that the search in the case of alleged Praveen Jain &Bhanwar Lal Jain group, was conducted on October, 2013, whereas captioned purchase bills pertain to F. Y. 2011-12 and thus

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

2) The penalty referred to in sub-section (1) shall be a sum which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to one lakh rupees. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, no penalty shall be levied for the failure referred to in clause (a) of sub-section

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

section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act and addition made by Id.AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions : 18 ITA No. 744/JP/2023 Narain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT S.No PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1. Copy

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 TDS under various section. However while processing ITR under section 143(1) a demand of Rs. 2,61,710/- was raised

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 on such payment. The ld. A/R has further contended that the order passed by the AO dated 29th March, 2016 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 201(3) of the IT Act as existed at the relevant point of time. He has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

3. This office considered the above reply and the case laws cited therein by the AR of the assessee, but not found tenable on merits as the assessee has not deducted TDS on selling commission payment of Rs. 2,11,07,351/-, on Exhibition expenses Rs. 15,70,429/- and on Testing Expenses Rs. 2,09,191/- to non-residents

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 145 (2) could not be invoked Ground of Appeal No. 3 & 3.1: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. Not pressed Ground of Appeal No. 4: In this ground of appeal, assessee challenged the action of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 11,709/- on account of TDS

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 145 (2) could not be invoked Ground of Appeal No. 3 & 3.1: M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. Not pressed Ground of Appeal No. 4: In this ground of appeal, assessee challenged the action of ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 11,709/- on account of TDS

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

2 of Rule 37BA, the credit for the TDS is to be allowed to the person in whose hands the corresponding income is to be taxed and not to the deductee. The above Rule has prescribed procedure for claiming TDS credit by such other person. (vii) Hence, in view of the Section 199(1) r.w. rule 37BA, it is held