M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

35-37, Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice (PB 38-40) and CP Worldlines Pvt. Ltd. along with sample 4 M/s. Airlink International, Jaipur. invoice (PB 41-44) it can be noted that the invoices raised is only for freight charges. Hence, only because these 3 parties have deducted TDS on the amount

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

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

section 194J was attracted and ACIT, (TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu the hospital cannot be treated as assessee in default for not deducting tax from such payments [Asstt. CIT vs. Indraprastha Medical Corp. Ltd. (2010) 35

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS, filing of PAN of the Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) read with Section 194C of the Act; and (vi) If the assessee

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

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

35,485/- on account of non-deduction of TDS for payment M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur made to non-resident having no PE. The disallowance so made & confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), is contrary to the provisions of law and facts. 3. 20,67,054/- : The ld. CIT(A) erred

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

TDS), UCO Bank vs. ACIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 45 (Cuttack - Trib.): “Head note - Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty

ACIT (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

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

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

35. Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by the provisions of Chapter XVII-B then such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct. In these cases

JAIPUR NATIONAL UNIVERSITY,JAIPUR vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

35. Section 271C inter alia states that if any person fails to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as required by the provisions of Chapter XVII-B then such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to deduct. In these cases

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, filing of PAN of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 45 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections I94C(6) and Section I94C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) read with

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, filing of PAN of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 45 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections I94C(6) and Section I94C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) read with

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, filing of PAN of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 45 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections I94C(6) and Section I94C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) read with

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, filing of PAN of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 45 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections I94C(6) and Section I94C(7) are independent of each other, and cannot be read together to attract disallowance u/s 40(a) (ia) read with

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