RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

41,331/- and TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

41,331/- and TDS of Rs.6,26,680/- was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the appellant. Further, addition of Rs.6,26,68,011/- has resulted in double addition as the appellant has already included the said income in its profit and loss account and paid taxes on it and same cannot be added under section

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 263. 26 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT Ground No.4 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred by holding that no TDS was made on commission paid to directors of Rs.52,41

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)

41). Therefore, the disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) made by the ld. AO is clearly not on legal footing and needs to be deleted. As far as the observation of the CIT (Appeals) is concerned that – ‘Careful perusal of the assessment order clearly indicates that AO has highlighted both the propositions for disallowance but has not specifically mentioned under which

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TDS by taking a view that circular has been withdrawn and treating the sales commission as fee for technical services. It is pertinent to note that this commission was given for procuring the export orders from outside India. Sourcing orders abroad for which payment had been made directly to the nonresident does not fall in the category of technical services

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act. GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee

DCIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act. GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

41,373 was paid as a Royalty on which TDS was also deducted. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,39,757 was paid for other services and on this also TDS was deducted. It is to be noted that out of Rs. 13,92,83,709/- the amount of foreign interest on which TDS was deducted was only

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee – Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that it would be necessary to examine relevant provisions of State Sales Tax Act and Rules to know as to who would be entitled to refund – Accordingly, Tribunal remanded matter to Commissioner (Appeals) – However

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

41 taxmann.com 268 (Cuttack - Trib.): Head note “..Section 272A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For failure to answer question, sign statements, etc. [Delay in filing e-TDS

MAHAVIR PRASAD JIAN,TONK vs. ITO, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Bench.

41,500/- u/s 272 A(2)(K). In this regard, it was submitted that the accountant who was having experience in preparing of data for TDS return was ill therefore we could not prepared the return in time. Although tax was paid on 30.04.2011 which was fully in time and there was not a single day delay in payment

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 40(a)(1) for failing to deduct tax u/s 195 to disallow expenditure to extent of Rs.26.75 crores by Assessment Order-CIT(A) held that amount paid to non resident sub-arranger was in nature of commission / brokerage and not fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1) (vil)-Consequently, CIT(A) held that there

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

41,855/- u/s 199 of the Act which was deducted in the name of appellant being co-owner of property. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and facts in wrongly reduce the total TDS credit while CBDT clarified that the entire TDS benefit (in case

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

TDS thereon by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. (a) The assessee firm paid, interest of Rs. 2,98,826/- to NBFC. M/s Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. and Rs.14,74,943/- to M/s Future Capital another NBFC. The assessee firm raised loan 2 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT from said NBFCs

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)

41,78,227/- disallowance u/s 37 of Rs 1,34,636/- and disallowance u/s 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

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H on such brokerage paid was duly deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. Moreover, payment of brokerage and Commission has also been reflected under sales and administrative expenses (Annexure-P) forming part of the audited financial statements of the appellant already available with the Income Tax Department. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3)\nof the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act] by ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur [ for short\nAO ]\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: -\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nadmitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962\nwithout

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LTD. ,KOTA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by Learned PCIT is hereby set aside

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal, Feeling Dissatisfied With The Order Dated 19.03.2025 Passed By Learned Pcit

TDS in Revised Return iv. Claim of Any Other Amount Allowable as Deduction in Schedule BP v. High creditors/liabilities. vi. Ind-AS compliance and adjustment vii. Refund claim viii. ICDS compliance and adjustment ix. Expenses incurred for earning exempt income x. Taxability of business liability written off u/s 41 or any other section