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

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, our attention is drawn to the fact that though the Finance Act, (NO.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 to Section 194C(3) of the Act. Placing 13 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company such provisions in juxtaposition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

34.\nSo it is clear that the same is part of section 10(37) of the Income tax\nAct.\n6. Sir, as your goodself mentioned that why the interest should not be\ntaxed under section 56(Vii) and Section 57(iv):-\nIn this regard it is submitted that the same is not taxable under both the\nsections, because

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34, but truthfulness, thereof, was not proved by any independent\nevidence.\n3.2.\nIn Common Causes v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC), it was held that Entries in\nloose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers\nare not “books of account” and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a\nperson with liability. Even

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

TDS was made\non the amount of Rs. 1,31,17,690/- only. Thus the balance\ninterest payments of Rs.8,33,34,769/- pertained to the loans\ntaken from scheduled banks. As per the provisions of section

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 under which TDS was deducted submitted during proceedings u/s 263. Facts and Submission:- 1. The Ld. PCIT at Pg 18, Para 16(iv) of the order observed that assessee paid rent of Rs.8,74,00,000/- but in clause 34

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34, but truthfulness, thereof, was not proved by any independent\nevidence.\n\n3.2.\n\nIn Common Causes v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC), it was held that Entries in\nloose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers\nare not “books of account” and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a\nperson with liability

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

TDS ought to have been deducted\nu/s. 194J and 194Q, we fail to find any merit because section 194J\nrefers to deduction of tax on fees for professional on technical services\nwhich is not at all applicable in the case of assessee and 194Q is\napplicable because it is deduction of tax at source on payment of\ncertain

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

34, but truthfulness, thereof, was not proved by any independent\nevidence.\n3.2.\nIn Common Causes v. UOI [2017] 394 ITR 220 (SC), it was held that Entries in\nloose papers/ sheets are irrelevant and inadmissible as evidence. Such loose papers\nare not \"books of account\" and the entries therein are not sufficient to charge a\nperson with liability. Even

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

34==\ndocuments before confirming the addition. Submission filed by the ld. AR of the\nassessee is as under:-\n1. It is submitted that addition of Rs. 25,00,000 was made to the income of the assessee, on the\nbasis of Page No. 41 of Exhibit-3 to Annexure-A said to have been found and seized from the\nfactory

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

34-37) 5 SANTOSH CHOUDHARY VS ITO, WARD BARAN (iii) Copy of ITR -AY. 2023-24 and other documents as mentioned in the submission. Therefore it was pleaded that the entire TDS deducted under section

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

34(b), complete details of TDS alongwith details of TDS Returns filed by assessee were duly reported, however ld.AO has not even considered the same and has drawn adverse inference from list of loans mentioned, and confirmations, wherein PANs were omitted to be mentioned inadvertently. Moreover, as stated above, in final show cause notice dated 20.12.2018, no doubt was raised

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

34. Even if court hikes compensation for land and interest is awarded under Section 28 of the Act, upon such increased compensation, in the light of larger Bench judgment, the Department and Disbursing Authorities are bound to effect deduction of TDS

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

TDS was neither required to be deducted under\nSection 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under\nSection 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue.\n3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur\nvide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act,\nerred in remanding the ground of revision

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)

34 (SC). Ground No2.Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-NFAC, has erred in not allowing the relief against order passed by AO under section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 and imposing a demand of Rs. 15,52,358/- towards Non deduction and short deduction of TDS

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H on such brokerage paid was duly deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. Moreover, payment of brokerage and Commission has also been reflected under sales and administrative expenses (Annexure-P) forming part of the audited financial statements of the appellant already available with the Income Tax Department. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

34 ITR 0028 (Hyd Trib) (DPB 14-25)which is a detailed order, considering Explanation 2. In that case held as under. "Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961- Deduction of tax at source - Payment to non-resident (Explanation 2 section 195)-Assessment year 2007-08-Whether where amounts are paid outside India to persons outside Indian territory

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

section, order shall be passed in writing by\nthe income tax authorities concerned.\n10. At page 39 of the paper book, submitted on behalf of the assessee,\nbefore this Appellate Tribunal, is available copy of order dated 18.01.2023.\nSaid order was passed u/s 143(1)/154 of the Act. When reproduced for\nready reference, same reads as under

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

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct