M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

36,44,553 Nil Nil CSR expenses 40,42,000 40,42,000 40,42,000 Deduction u/s 80IA 10,70,76,173 Nil Nil Disallowance u/s 14A 37,19,337 37,19,337 37,19,337 Service Tax Receivable 1,64,16,000 1,64,16,000 Nil Short credit of TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

v. Panalfa Autoelektric Limited (2014 49 taxmann.com 412(Delhi) for assessment year 2010-11 had elaborately discussed export commissions payable for generation of export orders in hand of taxpayer and held that these services could not be held to be managerial, technical or consultancy services to fall within definition as contemplated under explanation 2 to Section 9(1

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

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 complies with the provisions of Section 194C(6), no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation

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

36,44,553 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 40,42,000 | 40,42,000 | 40,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 10,70,76,173 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 37,19,337 | 37,19,337 | 37,19,337\n| Service Tax Receivable | 1,64,16,000 | 1,64,16,000 | Nil\n| Short credit of TDS

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

36,322/- on 24.10.2017 and Rs. 1,92,680/- on 28.03.2017). 4.1 The ld. AR submitted that without prejudice to the position that the Bank has correctly granted exemption under section 10(5) to its employees at the time of deduction of tax at source, it is submitted that the Bank was under a bona fide belief that even where

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

36(1)(iii) instead of\nu/s 14A;\n2. No addition on account of Finance charges of Rs.5,19,49,691/- by\nmisunderstanding the same as part of periodic overlay expenses; and\nnot making adjustment on account of addition made for Periodic\nOverlay expenses while computing book profit;\n3. Amortisation of expenses on construction of toll road;\n4. Donation already added

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 / 158 Taxman 74 the Tribunal has held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest on the borrowed funds. The observations made by the Supreme Court in S. A. Builders Ltd.'s case (supra) were quoted by the Tribunal as under (page 10) : ". . . where it is obvious that a holding company

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

v. CIT (Appeals) [2007] 288 ITR 1 / 158 Taxman 74 the Tribunal has held that the assessee was entitled to the deduction of interest on the borrowed funds. The observations made by the Supreme Court in S. A. Builders Ltd.'s case (supra) were quoted by the Tribunal as under (page 10) : ". . . where it is obvious that a holding company

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)

36,71,721/- Central Academy Aashiyana, Lucknow 10,00,000/- Central Academy Sardarpura, Udaipur 9,88,370/- Central Academy Jhodpur Education Society Central Academy Banar, Jodhpur 25,00,000/- Total 1,57,35,091/- The constitution of both the societies along with the registration granted u/s 12AA of the Act to these societies

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

36(1)(va) of the Act. The impugned order thus, to\nthis extent is a nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves\nto be quashed.\n4. Rs.63,97,664/-1 The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an altogether new issue of the alleged\ndisallowance u/s 43B(e) of the Act on account of interest

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS Payable Rs. 36,295/- 5. VAT Payable Rs. 1,30,40,450/- Rs. 1,33,14,566/- In the assessee's case for the AY 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Jaipur vide his order dated 28.11.16 has confirmed the addition of 61,86,770/- on the identical issue of non-payment of statutory liabilities as per provisions

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS Payable Rs. 36,295/- 5. VAT Payable Rs. 1,30,40,450/- Rs. 1,33,14,566/- In the assessee's case for the AY 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Jaipur vide his order dated 28.11.16 has confirmed the addition of 61,86,770/- on the identical issue of non-payment of statutory liabilities as per provisions

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS Payable Rs. 36,295/- 5. VAT Payable Rs. 1,30,40,450/- Rs. 1,33,14,566/- In the assessee's case for the AY 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Jaipur vide his order dated 28.11.16 has confirmed the addition of 61,86,770/- on the identical issue of non-payment of statutory liabilities as per provisions

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

v CIT (1977) 107 ITR (SC) it has been held that the law is well settled that the onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by an assessee, is on him. Where the nature and source thereof cannot be explained satisfactorily, it is open to the revenue to hold that