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

40A(2)(b) of the Act, which is confirmed. However, as pointed out by the appellant in his submissions, apparently, there is a calculation mistake in the assessment order; thus, interests should have been computed on Rs.1,68,60,000/- @12% amounting to Rs.20,2,3200/-. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs.20,23,200/-is confirmed instead of Rs.21

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

2) to section 9(1) (vil) so as to deemed to accrue or arise in India Revenue's Appeal dismissed." 8.7 NEC HCL System Technologies Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 46 CCH 0396 DelTrib "TDS-Non-deduction-Disallowance u/s 40a(i)-Assessee was established for purposeof providing offshore centric software engineering services and solutions to NEC Group and its subsidiaries

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(3) of the Act. The expenses are reasonable and are resulting into receipts because these expenses are directly related to the manufacturing part. The lower authorities have not pointed out any specific payment

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

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

Section 40A(2)(a) r.w.s. 40A(2)(b) of the Act and a show cause was issued to the assessee to explain the genuineness of the said commission paid and to produce these persons for necessary examination. However, the assessee did not produce these persons for examination and has filed written submissions which were considered by the Assessing Officer

SHRI NARESH KUMAR LUHADIA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 40A(2)(b) of the Act and determined the fair rate of interest at 15% and disallowed the 3% of interest paid to the related parties. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. We note that the assessee has debited the total interest of Rs. 46,26,990/- in the Profit

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)

B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Aman Exports International DCIT, Vs. G-93 Epip Sitapura, Industrial Area Circle

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI vs. SHRI SATISH KUMAR, ALWAR

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

Section 40A((2)(b) of the Act and also that the entire expenses were not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee. It is noticed that all the three persons were regularly assessed to tax and necessary TDS

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

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

b),(c). Undeniably the power to reject books of accounts is to be exercised only when the books are found incorrect or incomplete for determining the true and correct profits earned by the assessee.This power is implied in the Income Tax Officers power to inquire into the total income of the assessee. 10. In the present case, undisputedly the only

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

b),(c). Undeniably the power to reject books of accounts is to be exercised only when the books are found incorrect or incomplete for determining the true and correct profits earned by the assessee.This power is implied in the Income Tax Officers power to inquire into the total income of the assessee. 10. In the present case, undisputedly the only

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

In the result, the addition so made by the AO is hereby set- aside

TDS as required u/s 194J, he disallowed Rs.64,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of IT Act and which has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A). 9. At the outset, the ld AR submitted that assessee has not claimed expenditure on payment of audit fees at Rs.64,000/-. It has made provision for audit fees at Rs.55,000 + 10.3% service

SHRI GOVIND SWAROOP GARG,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, AJMER

In the result, ground is allowed for statistical purposes

40A(2)(b) of the Act. However when the matter was taken before ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that the advance of Rs. 51,000,00/- given by the company to Shri Govind Garg for purchase of land for showroom and service station and such advance are for the purpose of business

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)

B on any such sum but is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 201, then, for the purposes of this sub-clause, it shall be deemed that the assessee has deducted and paid the tax on such sum on the date of furnishing of return of income

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

TDS and section 40A(3) of the Act on account of payment in cash beyond the prescribed threshold, the additions so made by the AO are hereby confirmed. 30. Regarding other expenses namely excessive/ bogus expenses amounting to Rs 2,63,189, unrecorded marble and granite purchase of Rs 98,948, unrecorded purchases/labour and transportation charges of lime amounting

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

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

M/S. SWASTIK OIL INDUSTRIES,TONK vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, , JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

section 145(1) and if the provisions was not invoked then the estimate of profit would not possible in the eyes of law. Further, the AO made trading addition considering the yield ratio of similar business carrying out same job at same station in the same conditions. Here I am of view that if the same businesses with same