KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

Section 153B(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- made in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153B

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) and/or\nunder Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on\n20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours\nindicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of\nthe appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee\non 20.05.2013 explained in minute

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

sections was as under: - Sec. Nature of receipts TDS as Amount Corresponding Income per 26AS shown in offered in ITR (₹) (₹) 26AS as receipts (₹) 194A Interest 1,05,991 10,59,897 10,59,897 194H Commission 97,862 19,56,544 21,94,075 194Q Sales made as Nil, as sales by kachaa 4

RAJESH PRODUCTS,TONK ,RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender The affidavit filed by the assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

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

4. That the A.O has contended that the assessee is liable to deduct taxes under section 194C of the Act and non deduction of prescribed taxes attract provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 5. That the assessee has claimed that in view of provisions of section 194C(6) of the Act, no TDS

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

4 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) Department that an issue regarding- its taxability arose and after judgments of CIT and this Bench the matter got clarified. thus, in other words the Bank has not willfully defaulted/ intentionally not deducted TDS. After the settlement of dispute, the original demand has been deposited which shows the genuineness of above claim

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

TDS under the provisions of section 194C of the I.T. Act, 1961 as the expenditure is the nature of the business promotion expenses which was already mentioned at Point no. 4

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS\nDeposited\n1\nICICI BANK LIMITED\nIFPRT01273G\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\n05-May-2010\n2936021.00\n295567.00\n29556706\n2\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n8522.06\nR$2.00\n852.00\n3\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n38422.00\n3842.00\n3842.00\n4\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n54440.00\n$449.00\n5449.00\n5\n194A

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.”

4 M/s. Gold Creations, Kota. section sets out some exhaustive adjustments, which can be made while processing the statement. Section 234E has been inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 1st 7.1 July, 2012 which provides for levy of Fee for delay in furnishing TDS

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit\nfiled on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36\nhours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the\nauthorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by\nthe assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit\nfiled on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36\nhours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the\nauthorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by\nthe assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of conditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the trust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce and cater solely

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

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.

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

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit\nfiled on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36\nhours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the\nauthorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by\nthe assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) and/or under Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit\nfiled on 20.05.2013. The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36\nhours indicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the\nauthorities of the appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by\nthe assessee on 20.05.2013 explained in minute details

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

4(1) and section-191 clearly\nspecifies that the ultimate tax liability i.e. charge on income is to be borne by\nthe assesse only. In the present case, it is amply clear that the litigations were\ngoing on the issue and the assessee-bank did not deduct the TDS