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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

TDS returns by the assessee, the AO the Assessing Officer has already issued a show cause u/s 234E /271H dated 28.01.2019. The ld AR further submitted that as the assessee complies with the provisions of section 194C(6), the provisions of section 40

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS) as required by sub-section (2) of section 197A - Accordingly, Assessing Officer invoked section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

TDS which is a bonafide decision of the assessee that the provisions of section 194C is applicable in respect of the said payment made under sub-contract, then even if the AO did not accept this decision of the assessee, the provisions of section 40

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

TDS made by the appellant payer, there cannot be any disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). And in the Act also there is an amendment of Sec. 40(a)(ia) and u/s 201(1) in the finance Act 2012 which provides Second proviso to Section

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

40(a)(ia) by holding that the appellant did not deduct Income Tax at Source (TDS) on the interest paid to NBFC(s) without appreciating that the entire amount stood “paid” during the year itself and no amount remained outstanding as on 31.03.2012. Thus, the provisions of section

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

40(a)(ia) by holding that the appellant did not deduct Income Tax at Source (TDS) on the interest paid to NBFC(s) without appreciating that the entire amount stood “paid” during the year itself and no amount remained outstanding as on 31.03.2012. Thus, the provisions of section

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

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

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

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

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

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. SEATEL ELECTRONICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD-2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the

TDS on or before the due date of filing of the return under Section 139(1), the sum shall be allowed as an expense in computing the income of the previous year. The two provisions are akin and the provisos to Sections 40

M/S N. M. ROOF DESIGNERS LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for want of TDS. The assessee has claimed interest expenditure of Rs. 37,15,215/- to NBFCs since no TDS was deducted by the assessee prior to the payment or credit of the said interest amount, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section

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

TDS therefore as per provisions of section 195 read with section 40(a)(ia) the expenses of Rs. Rs.1,54,37,262/- on account

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