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

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

34. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS

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

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

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS) as required by sub-section (2) of section 197A - Accordingly, Assessing Officer invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed interest payments - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed disallowance made by Assessing Officer - On instant appeal, it was seen that apart from aforesaid inference, there was no other evidence in possession of revenue authorities to hold that declarations were not submitted by payees

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee firm could not furnish the requisite information i.e. PAN of the 2 ACIT, Bharatpur Vs. M/s Arihant Trading Co. Pahari, Bharatpur transporter whose services it had availed along with the other applicable TDS returns within the prescribed time or even till date. It cannot be ascertained

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

GEETA STAR HOTELS & RESORTS P LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

34. Accordingly, we hold that the amendment to section 200A(1) of the Act is procedural in nature and in view thereof, the Assessing Officer while processing the TDS

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. It was the contention of the appellant that since the relevant previous year was the first year, when the above said notification became applicable, therefore, it could not noticed the same and consequently, under a bonafide error could not made compliance of the same. (ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. It was the contention of the appellant that since the relevant previous year was the first year, when the above said notification became applicable, therefore, it could not noticed the same and consequently, under a bonafide error could not made compliance of the same. (ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. It was the contention of the appellant that since the relevant previous year was the first year, when the above said notification became applicable, therefore, it could not noticed the same and consequently, under a bonafide error could not made compliance of the same. (ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. It was the contention of the appellant that since the relevant previous year was the first year, when the above said notification became applicable, therefore, it could not noticed the same and consequently, under a bonafide error could not made compliance of the same. (ix) It was the contention of the appellant that the provisions of section 194C

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 (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