M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

32(1)(ii) has been inserted with effect from 1.4.2016 which reads as under: 9 M/s Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs. DCIT “Provided also that where an asset referred to in clause (iia) or the first proviso to clause (iia), as the case may be, is acquired by the assessee during the previous year

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

1) as these payments are not chargeable to tax and the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) cannot be invoked in the instant case. 31. In light of above discussions and considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is directed to be deleted. 32. Now, coming to ITA No. 23/JP/19

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

32. It is worth noticing that in ACIT —vs.-Mr. Mohammed Suhail, Kurnool in ITA No. 1536.Hyd/2014, order 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

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

TDS was deducted on such income - Held, yes\n[Para 9] [In favour of assessee]\"\nWe therefore request you to kindly delete the Additions on Account\nof Salary of Rs. 29,86,963/- (HK$ 360000/-) received for services\nrendered in Hong Kong.\n3. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in\ntreating the Humble Appellant

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

section\n43B(e) of the Act, such interest can be allowed only when it is\npaid before the due date for filing ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act. As\nper clause 26(i)(B) (a) the amount of interest on bank loans paid\n4\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\nbefore the due date

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

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and\ncomplete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of\nincome. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he\ncould have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.\non 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged

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

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. Ergo we decide accordingly, and the additional ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed.\n62. 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. 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 (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried