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

TDS not eligible for deduction\nunder Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37.\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed.\nEach of such issues is now being taken up by us, in the ensuing paragraphs.\n2.5.1 Disallowance under Section 14A, read with Rule 8D, of Rs. 23,31

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\n5\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.1,41,42,000/-\nRs.71,75,575/-\n\nAfter

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

31) of the Act. Therefore, even a non-resident person responsible for paying to a non-resident was liable to deduct TDS u/s 195 however, certain judicial pronouncements had created doubts about the scope and purpose of S.195. It is only therefore, with a view to clarify that the obligation to make TDS u/s 195(1) applies

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section 40(a)(ia) would not arise at all. Reliance is placed on the 6 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company Judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Valibhai Khanbhai Mankad [ 2013- 216 taxman 18 Gujarat]. Non submission of PANs of transporter within the prescribed time

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

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

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

31-3-2005 was only 59 days, i.e., less than\n60 days as mentioned in section 6(1)(c), assessee's status\nwas to be regarded as non-resident - Held, yes\"\nk. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC' incase of Avdesh Kumar\nV. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-1,\nGhaziabad* [2018] 96 taxmann.com 340 (Delhi - Trib.) held\nthat \"Section

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

TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As\nper the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students.\n2.\nThe AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit\ncard bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of\nRs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d) of the Act. 5. The decisions relied by the AO are not applicable

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

31-01-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the fact that the penalty notice dated

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS and was\nduly accepted by the AO as well. Admittedly, there is no upward variation made\nby the AO in the declared income.\n11.2 The subsequent validly filed ROI substitutes the earlier one:\nIt is well settled that if ROI has been filed u/s 139 within the permissible time limit,\nit can be revised u/s 139(5) and once

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)

31,72,239/-) while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. - Excess levy on interest u/s 234C (Rs. 2,55,24,706/-) - Short Grant of TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section

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)

31 May 2023 was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.Further, at para 4.4.1 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that as the Appellant has not furnished a valid return of income, the assessment is proposed to be completed under section 144 of the Act, however the same was done under section 147 r.w.s. 144B