ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

TDS and given that, the assessee’s contention that there are no written/verbal contracts has been rightly rejected by the AO and provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has been rightly invoked. Regarding cash payment and violation of section 40A

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is under contract with M/s Bikaner Detective Security Service and has deducted TDS

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(a)(ia) cannot be invoked due to the reason of difference of opinion

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

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such (ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would

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 to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed.” From the above it can be noted that amendment made by Finance Act 2014 is to remove unintended and undue hardship and therefore this amendment should be give retrospective effect

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section

SUPERSONIC TURNERS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS and cash payment was also made to the person who is assessed to income tax and the payment was within the permissible limits of Section 40A

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

TDS @ 10%. Mr. Sanjay Gupta is regular income tax payer and he disclosed the same commission in his Income Tax Return and offered for taxation. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provision of section 40A

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)

TDS along with a penal interest under section 13 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT 201(A) and under section 220(2) secondly, he is again penalized by the provisions of section 40a

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. We also note from the records that both the payees have been paid interest after deducting the TDS

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3). 18 ITA 283/JP/2020_ M/s Guru Kripa Career Institute P Ltd. Vs PCIT iv) Alleged non-verification of claim of depreciation on computer and furniture and vehicle running expenses, advertisement expenses v) Abnormal increase in Cash in hand post survey vi) Outstanding liabilities in sundry creditors for advertisement and rent expenses and staff payable vii) Alleged non-verification

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS the section 40A(ia) cannot be invoked. This view is also taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS the section 40A(ia) cannot be invoked. This view is also taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section

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

TDS Deducted Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 1,98,282/- Nil Tata Capital Limited 4,33,221/- Nil Religares Finvest Ltd. 22,52,810/- Nil TOTAL 28,84,313/- The AO invoked the provisions of section 40a

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

TDS Deducted Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. 1,98,282/- Nil Tata Capital Limited 4,33,221/- Nil Religares Finvest Ltd. 22,52,810/- Nil TOTAL 28,84,313/- The AO invoked the provisions of section 40a

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 in respect of these payments made to various transporters as well as contract transporters. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the fact that the assessee produced information as required U/s 194C(7) of the Act in the shape of challan/builties/GR/invoice printing PAN of the recipients, therefore, to the extent of the payment made to these contractors, the assessee