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

32,895/-\nand the other expenditure of R$7,07,914/ was paid/credited\nwithout TDS. Thus, this amount is liable to disallowance u/s\n40(a)(i) of the Act.\n''2.5 In the computation sheet enclosed with the assessment\norder the FAO has allowed MAT credit u/s 115AA of\nRs.2,12,99,115/-. In the ITR claimed MAT credit

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

MADAN LAL GUPTA ,RAMGANJ MANDI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

32,740/- and also claiming prepaid taxes at\nRs.1,55,590/-. However, in the return processed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the\nAct dated 17.12.2023 the prepaid tax credit was allowed only to the\nextent of Rs.64,798/- and the balance tax credit of Rs.90,792/- was\ndenied. Form No. 26AS duly reflects the TDS of Rs.1,55,590/-\ndeducted

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo\nwe decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by\nthe assessee is allowed.\n62. Ground No. 6 (Additional Ground no. 2) of the assessee’s\nappeal raised by the ld. A/R of the assessee is in relation to\nallowability of interest paid on late deposit of TDS

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

CURRENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BASANT VIHAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR , BABA SIDHNATH BAHWAN

32 of the paper book therein).\nIn the written submission on ground No.1 of the appeal before\nLearned CIT(A), the assessee also referred to the subsequent letter dated\n23.01.2023 hereby TDS credit of Rs. 14,30,745/-.was denied.\nIn the given situation, we want to observe that the moment order\ndated 18.1.2023 was passed under 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

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS u/s 195 w.r.t. Commission Paid to Agents outside India: 8.1 ACIT vs. IIC Systems (P) Ltd. (2010) 33 DTR 0422 (Hyd trib) 8.2 DCIT vs. Ardeshi b. Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 7 DTR 0051 (Mum Trib) 8.3 Armayesh Global vs. ACIT (2012) 32 CCH 0159 (Mum Trib) 8.4 CIT vs. Eon Technology

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 142(1), the assessee stated that it had forgotten to disallow the interest on late payment of TDS and accordingly, the AO disallowed Rs. 32