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

35 to balance sheet, expenses of Rs 8,32,895/-\nand Rs.7,07,914/- was made in foreign currency to foreign\nparties. Both these amounts are prima facie liable to TDS u/s\n195 of the Act but as per clause 34(a) of form 3CD, the auditors\nhave reported that TDS u/s 195 was made only

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

35,91,454 by way of treating cash/SBNs deposited in bank account as unexplained income of the assessee will tantamount to double addition/taxation of the same receipts/income.” 3. Brief Facts of the case are that the assessee has e-filed his return of income for assessment year 2017-18 on 20.08.2017 declaring total income

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.\n[Explanation 1]. —For the purposes of this section, \"Valuation Officer\" shall\nhave

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35) of the General Clauses Act. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of AO by holding that interest payable for delay in deposit of TDS is governed by 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)

TDS [ question no. 6, 31 – APB page 69 & 70 ] has already applied his mind and the ld. PCIT intend to invoke the provision of section 263 just to see the ld. AO should have made the enquiry the way he wanted and the same is not permissible under the law. As regards the delay in payment of ESI/PF

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35,000/- to Ganpati Communication. (c) TDS has been deducted by Vodafone M-Pesa Limited why they have deducted TDS we do not know. Whatever TDS they have deducted we claimed as TDS and we include Whole of transaction in our Books of accounts which is audited…..” In response to further query by the AO, the assessee produced confirmation

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

Section\n144 of the ITA. At the time of the hearing, the assessee company submitted at the\nbar that it did not wish to press Ground No. 1. Accordingly, the said ground of\nappeal is dismissed as not pressed.\nGROUND NO. 2:\n79. In relation to Ground No. 2, the assessee company submitted before us that\nthe entire addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

TDS- Held, assessee firm paid export commission of Rs. 34,18,126/- to foreign agents for rendering services abroad in relation to sourcing of export orders and for collecting payments on behalf of assessee firm, on which no tax was deducted at source by assessee firm u/s 195-AO disallowed expenses of Rs. 34,18,126/- on account of export

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

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

TDS u/s. 194A of the Act. Therefore, as per provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30 % of this amount which comes to Rs. 1,05,52,530/- was liable to be disallowed. The ld. PCIT further observed that the assessee received duty drawback of Rs. 2,37,355/-. However, there is no evidence on record that this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS entertained (CA certificate with respect to the party submitted by the assessee), out of the total transactions of Rs.6,49,38,378/-. Based on these facts and keeping in view the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961, disallowance of Rs.1,84,16,722/- i.e. 30% of Rs.6,13,89,073/- (Rs.6

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

35) with direction to allow deduction @ 100% under section 10A of Act on enhanced profit as per circular No. 37 of 2016 of CBDT. Since there was no fax liability after order of this Hon'ble ITAT, assessee company did not prefer appeal u/s. 260 A before the Hon'ble High Court. After receipt of order

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. CIT FACLESS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT/ITO, (TDS)- Jaipur [ for short AO ]. Since the issue raised in both the appeals were identical were heard together and are disposed of by a common order by taking the fact of the case in ITA no. 68/JP/2025 as lead case. 2. At the outset

BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT/ITO, (TDS)- Jaipur [ for short AO ]. Since the issue raised in both the appeals were identical were heard together and are disposed of by a common order by taking the fact of the case in ITA no. 68/JP/2025 as lead case. 2. At the outset

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

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 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory