DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses

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)

40a(ia) should drawn/deleted and/or bring suitable amendments in the said act, to help assessee in losing genuine deduction on this account. Hon'ble Finance Minister found merit in the above suggestions made by the Industry in the form of representations in their pre-budget Memorandum. Accordingly, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) were amended by the Finance

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

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

7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. ACIT erred in making disallowance of Rs. 734800/- invoking the provision u/s 40a(ia) which was further reduced to Rs. 534800/- which is illegal and liable to be quashed. 8. The appellant prays to leave to add amend, delete or withdraw any of ground of appeal

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

section 40A(7) on account of provision for payment of gratuity. However, it is noticed that the said amount of provision has not been disallowed by the assessee company in the return of income as reported in Part A-OI of ITR. Therefore, the assessee vide annexure to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was requested to explain

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

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)

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted from the order of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in para 5.2.1 “that during the year under consideration the AO observed that loan of Rs.11,78,507/- taken from Naveen Kumar Khatri and loan of Rs. 13,69,013/- are loans taken from

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case are that the AO during the course of assessment proceeding noted that the assessee had neither maintained day to day stock register nor any detail pertaining to the day to day consumption of raw material or production of finished. For want

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The facts of the case are that the AO during the course of assessment proceeding noted that the assessee had neither maintained day to day stock register nor any detail pertaining to the day to day consumption of raw material or production of finished. For want

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

7. Reliance was placed by the ld AR on the decision of Jurisdictional Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of Vinay Kumar Sogani ITA No. 444/JP/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 26/07/2018 (Held : ..once the assessee has produced evidence which established the genuineness of the transaction being holding of shares by the assessee in the demat account and purchase

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

7 DTR 0051 (MumTrib) 8.3 Armayesh Global vs. ACIT (2012) 32 CCH 0159 (Mum Trib) 8.4 CIT vs. Eon Technology (P) Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 0366 (Del) 8.5 CIT vs. Toshoku Ltd (1980) 125 ITR 0525 (SC) held as under: "The commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident assessee for services rendered outside India cannot, therefore, be deemed

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)

40A of Rs 70,000/- loss has been reduced to Rs.1,03,39,557/ As the assessee did not deduct TDS on interest payment made to the Kotak Mahendra Prime Ltd, the assessee should reduce the loss claimed by Rs.42,40,572/ Kindly find herewith attached also the copy of relvant B/S, P/L account & computation. 7 DCIT vs. RDB Cars