SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the 6 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT Act, if the assessee is not deemed to be assessee in default in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act, on the said sum it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted the TDS

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS and consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS and consequently, the provisions of section 40(a)(i) cannot be invoked for making the disallowance. In the facts

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

40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS even though assessee has submitted Form 26A before both the lower authorities, in terms of Section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 195 of the I.T. Act, the assessee was liable to make the above payments after making TDS. But the assessee has failed to do so. 3.1 The issue as to whether the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 195 and whether the disallowance was liable to be made u/s 40

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS was not deducted. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 42,40,572/- are not allowable as per the provisions of section

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS, which was not allowable expenses. The appellant by citing provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) contended that the same are not disallowable under this section

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS, which was not allowable expenses. The appellant by citing provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) contended that the same are not disallowable under this section

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

TDS. 6. That the A.O had cited CBDT's circular in this regard relied on explanation 2 to section 9(1))(vii)(b) of the Act and rejected the assessee's claim, resulting in an addition of Rs.28,40

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

Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non\ndeposition of TDS. (AO Order Page 5)\n3.3\nThe amendment in section

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", "Section

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS on payment made to residents as specified in section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Section 40(a)(ia) on account of non\ndeposition of TDS. (AO Order\npage 5)\n\n3.3\nThe amendment in section

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

40(a)(i) of the Act due to non-deduction of the TDS; after disallowance a sum of Rs. 5,73,999/- worked out u/s. 14A of the Act; and after disallowance of a sum of Rs.75,000/-as per provisions of section

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40

VENUS FOOTARTS LIMITED,NEEM KA THANA, SIKAR vs. DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

TDS and TCS are not covered by the provisions of section 43B, however, fell in error in not taking note of the provisions of section 40

M/S MANGLAM LAND BANK COMPANY,6TH FLOOR, APEX MALL, TONK ROAD, LAL KOTHI, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS on the interest amount so paid as per provision of section 194A of the Act and therefore the AO was required to make disallowance @ 30% of the interest payment of Rs.35,07,236/- i.e. Rs.10,52,171/- u/s 40

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

40. Further Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Best Trading and Agencies Ltd vs DCIT (2020) 428 ITR 52 (Kar) has held that as per sub-section (5) of Sec 115JB, the application of other provisions are open, except if specifically barred by the section itself. Hence, considering the said provision, it has been held that since