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

TDS, the Tribunal considered it compensatory and thus deductible, and the NFAC's view was plausible. For the excess MAT credit, the Tribunal found that rectifying the issue would fall under Section 154, not Section 263, as it involved a mistake rather than an erroneous application of law.", "result": "Allowed", "sections": ["Section 14A", "Section 36(1)(ii)", "Section 37

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore\nTrib.) [14-08-2013]\n7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on the income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of the view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return of income, on the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

37 taxmann.com 440 (Bangalore\nTrib.) [14-08-2013]\n7. We have considered the rival submissions. As far as imposition of penalty on\nthe income offered in the return of income by the Assessee is concerned, we are of\nthe view that there cannot be any penalty on income which is declared in a return\nof income, on the facts

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

TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\n5\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.1,41,42,000/-\nRs.71,75,575/-\n\nAfter

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

TDS as applicable is applicable or not is not verified as the assessee has not given complete details. Based on these set of arguments ld. DR submitted that let the assessee prove before the AO, the claim made by the assessee as per provision of section 37(1

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section

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 on receipt of PAN. However, merely because there is non-compliance on part of the assessee to furnish the prescribed information to the Revenue authorities, the same cannot lead to a conclusion that the assessee has not complied with the first statutory obligation. There are separate penal provisions for non-compliance thereof and the AO has in fact invoked

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

37(1) of IT Act on account of payment made to Thompson\nProgrammatic Testing Centre through credit card against which assessee\nreceived consideration of Rs.13,90,000/- on which income is assessed by\napplying n.p. rate of 8% by not appreciating that when the income is computed by\napplying the provisions of section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

37 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur Interestingly, similar payments were made in the other years also when firstly, no disallowance at all was made u/s 40(a)(ia) in those years and also even in 2013 14 when the disallowance was made u/s 195, the AO did not term such commission payment as fees

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)

1 Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and the documents furnished without appreciating that as per section 251 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has been granted the power to either confirm, reduce, enhance

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)

1 Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and the documents furnished without appreciating that as per section 251 of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) has been granted the power to either confirm, reduce, enhance

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

37(1) of IT Act on account of payment made to Thompson Programmatic Testing Centre through credit card against which assessee received consideration of Rs.13,90,000/- on which income is assessed by applying n.p. rate of 8% by not appreciating that when the income is computed by Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO applying the provisions of section 44AD

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

37 (1), being incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Surrender during the search action:- It is important to note that during the course of search and seizure action the documents of the appellant were examined and from the same the data in the year wise calculation was prepared which is mentioned in the statement of the appellant

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)

37,323/- 2008-09 1,11,20,120/- 1,62,58,346/- 2009-10 1,35,75,701/- 41,10,041/- 2010-11 1,23,49,760/- 52,66,074/- 2011-12 2,27,78,950/- 72,09,303/- From the above table, it can be seen that the Development fees is utilized in creation of capital asset and therefore

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

TDS thereon. Based on that observation the ld. AO concluded that the assessee gifted the chin, Kada, Gold & silver jewellery to various doctors or touts for soliciting admission in Nursing Home or Hospital which are completely prohibited as per CBDT’s circular no. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 and also as per provision of section 37 of the Act. Based on these

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

1:- vide this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged the order u/s 154 dated 18.12.2017 passed by the DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2013-14 vide which the AO disallowed Rs. 5,37,270/- u/s 37 of the IT Act read with CBDT Circular No. 05/20152 dated 07.08.2012 on account of business promotion expenses. 5.1.1 The issue

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

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 the same meaning

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

TDS amounting to Rs. 1,10,980/- as business expenditure under section 37(1) of the I.T Act. ACIT vs. Shree