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

section 40A(2) of the Act, any unreasonable expenditure is disallowable. Identical issue has been covered by the Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subhash Chander Malik vs. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 180 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein the Hon'ble Court, upheld the disallowance made by the AO on account of excess rent paid. Further

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause\nnotice is silent about that.\nIn our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect\nprinciples to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly\nanalysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not\nthink that

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 40A(3). Ground No. 4 That the assesse provided all relevant documents confirmations to prove genuineness creditworthiness and identity of creditor hence the addition made treating the same as purchase as bad in law and hence no further addition in respect of other disallowance can be made Had the learned Assessing Officer had not made addition u/s 68 which

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,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

2,39,196/-. With regard to the remaining disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- made on account of short deduction of tax, it is seen that the assessee has complied with the provisions of TDS and made deduction though at a lower rate. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekriwal reported in 90 DTR page

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

2,39,196/-. With regard to the remaining disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- made on account of short deduction of tax, it is seen that the assessee has complied with the provisions of TDS and made deduction though at a lower rate. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of S.K. Tekriwal reported in 90 DTR page

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

TDS has been made u/s. 206C of the Act. However, assessee shown sale of scrap of Rs. 2,02,58,204/- only in its profit and loss account of ITR. As such there is an under disclosure of sales of scrap by Rs. 33,39,,666/- which should have been added to the total income. She further noted from

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

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

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 (2

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

40a(ia)(ii) of the Act. Further the assessee debited rent expenses of Rs. 55,45,213/- whereas TDS has been deducted for an amount of Rs. 45,00,000/- thus 30 % of 10,45,213/- amounting to Rs. 3,13,564/- was liable to disallowed. Further to that the assessee had made late deposit of ESI/PF to exchequer totaling

BRIJ BIHARI AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 , JAIPUR

40A(2)(b). Thus, it could\nnot be presumed that the AO had not verified the expense about its\nallowability or otherwise as stated by the Id. CIT(A). The AO is not\nsupposed to make all that as part of the assessment order. He is\nsupposed to make the enquiries to be part of assessment order where

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

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

TDS is not warranted – That apart, if the assessee has paid the impugned amount and the amount is not payable at the end of the year on the date of balance sheet, then the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable. M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. It is pertinent to note here that the Hon,ble ITAT, Jaipur

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 have to be added to the profits of the undertaking on which the assessee would be entitled for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the court in the following case: 8 M/s Amrapali

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

2. Disallowance of Interest on TDS 66,466/- 20,25,738/- In order to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind, assessee duly discharged the tax liability arising due to disallowances so made and no appeal was filed. However, penalty proceedings were initiated by ld.AO u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, for “misreporting and under reporting of income

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

2. Disallowance of Interest on TDS 66,466/- 20,25,738/- In order to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind, assessee duly discharged the tax liability arising due to disallowances so made and no appeal was filed. However, penalty proceedings were initiated by ld.AO u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, for “misreporting and under reporting of income

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)

40A (i) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee was found to have paid commission of Rs. 12, 10,958/- to foreign agents as sales commission and also by way of purchases commission, but he did not make any deduction by way of TDS in compliance of provisions of section