M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80- IB of the Act. This view was taken by the Courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer-Ward

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS have been made on such payment and the confirmations of the parties have been duly filed, deserve to be fully allowed and the assessee prays acoordingly. The contention of the assessee derives support from the following judicial pronouncements:- 12 Ram Ratan Jangir vs. ITO • CIT v/s M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 274 CTR 384 (Raj.) "The AO un- wantedly

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

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

TDS return/statements beyond the time prescribed by the Act and/or the Rules. We therefore cannot agree with the argument of the Petitioners that the fee that is sought to be collected under section 234E of the Act is really nothing but a collection in the guise of a tax. 16. We are supported in our view by a judgment

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu submitted its objections and reply whereby it argued that on the facts and circumstances of its case, provisions of Section 194J cannot be made applicable to it. However, the AO did not agree with the objection of the respondent assessee and given a finding that the services provided by the study centre

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

32. It is worth noticing that in ACIT v. Mohammed Suhail, Kurnool [IT Appeal No. 1536 (Hyd.) of 2014, dated 13.02.2015], the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal specifically held that the provisions of section 194C(6) are independent of section 194C(7), and just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7), disallowance under section

GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL KUMHARIA,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CPC) (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS, amounting of Rs. 32,700/- on A/c of late filing fees under section 234E. 4. The AO assessed that

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS and raised total demand of Rs.29,51,690/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT (A). Notices for hearing u/s 250 were issued to the appellant on 09.02.2021, 08.11.2021, 11.11.2021, 26.11.2021, 15.12.2021, 19.01.2022, 18.02.2022, 11.03.2022 and 05.07.2023. In response to the said notices, the assessee bank did not file any submission. A reference

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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 the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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 the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

32,65,406/- to M/s Saraya Distilleries Ltd., Rs. 51,81,557/- to May Fair Enterprises & Rs. 5,06,63,831/- to United Spirits Ltd., totaling to Rs. 5,91,10,794/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. on which TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

32,65,406/- to M/s Saraya Distilleries Ltd., Rs. 51,81,557/- to May Fair Enterprises & Rs. 5,06,63,831/- to United Spirits Ltd., totaling to Rs. 5,91,10,794/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. on which TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

32,65,406/- to M/s Saraya Distilleries Ltd., Rs. 51,81,557/- to May Fair Enterprises & Rs. 5,06,63,831/- to United Spirits Ltd., totaling to Rs. 5,91,10,794/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. on which TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section

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 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 by the assessee is allowed.” 30. In the present case, undisputed

DCIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act. GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act. GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S MODERN INSULATORS LTD., JAIPUR

TDS on payment made to foreign parties holding that payment of commission to these parties was in lieu of services rendered by them for the business purposes of the assessee and holding that circular no. 7 of 22-10-2009 it not clarificatory in nature and is not applicable with retrospective effect. ITA No. 586/JP/2012

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s appeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to allowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS