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

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

section 201(1) of the Act. In view of the circular No.275/201/95 IT (B) dated 29.01.1997 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in 293 ITR 226 5. In order to appreciate the rival contentions and more particularly

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

MOUNT SHIVALIK INDUSTRIES LTD.,ALWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

42,86,372/- under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS. 2. That the Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

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

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

M/S. SATYAM POLYPLAST,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

TDS and 4 Satyam Polyplast vs. DCIT consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i)of the Act are attracted in this case. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The assessee has paid commission to non-resident persons against the service

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

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

TDS was neither required to be deducted under Section 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under Section 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act, erred in remanding the ground of revision

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

JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Passing The Order.’’

42,587/- respectively totaling to Rs. 5,74,927/-. 2 M/s. Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. vs. DCIT (TDS ), Jaipur 2. The DCIT (TDS) has erred in law in not providing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing the order.’’ 2.1 None appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing in spite of service