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)

42,00,40,000 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

42,822/-. However, AO had given TDS credit of Rs. 47,90,086/- only in order u/s 143(3) and not given TDS credit of Rs.8,52,736/ TDS of Rs.8,52,736/- had been deducted by deductor in AY 2017-18 on advance payment the work of which has been done in AY 18-19. Income for the same

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

TDS was neither required to be deducted under\nSection 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under\nSection 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue.\n3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur\nvide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act,\nerred in remanding the ground of revision

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)

TDS was not deducted. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 42,40,572/- are not allowable as per the provisions of 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 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS liability for Rs. 59,11,080/- on such account in the year under consideration and thereby the assessee was considered as the assessee in default as per the provision of section 201(1) of the Act. Having done so ld. AO noted as per Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS liability for Rs. 59,11,080/- on such account in the year under consideration and thereby the assessee was considered as the assessee in default as per the provision of section 201(1) of the Act. Having done so ld. AO noted as per Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS liability for Rs. 59,11,080/- on such account in the year under consideration and thereby the assessee was considered as the assessee in default as per the provision of section 201(1) of the Act. Having done so ld. AO noted as per Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. provision of section

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

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS challan payment. It is pertinent to note that the assessee had discharged its duty promptly by preparing the challans and tendering the cheques to the bank well within time. The delay was entirely beyond the control of the assessee and occurred solely due to operational lapses on the bank’s side. In recognition of this, the bank has also

SAURYA URJA COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

section 199 x 37BA Therefore,\nthese grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.\n4.3 Ground No. 3- This ground is general in nature and hence not adjudicated.\nThis ground is hence dismissed.\n5. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed.”\n5.\nAggrieved with the part solution so provided by the Id. CIT(A) to the\ngrievance

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

42,905/-. The appellant further submitted that M/s. Castrol India Limited has wrongly mentioned the TDS section as 194C instead

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

TDS deductions, or banking transactions does not meet the\nthreshold for proving the genuineness of the claimed expenses. The appellant's\nfailure to provide primary supporting evidence, coupled with the non-compliance of\nsummoned parties, supports the AO's position that the genuineness of these\nexpenses remains unverified.\n2. Banking Channels for Transactions\nWhile the appellant has argued that conducting

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2 NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

42,89,390) under section 244A(1)of the Act. The Ld CIT(A) vide order dated 13 October 2022 dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant by following the decision of the jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, in IT Appeal No. 205 of 2004 dated 10 November