SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return." (vi) Thus, it is very clear that any tax by whatever name called is covered u/s 438 of the Act. It may be mentioned that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN AVAS VIKAS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing."

TDS in question was deducted by the bank was in respect of the funds received by the assessee from HUDCO in the fiduciary capacity on 7 DCIT vs. M/s Rajasthan Awas Vikas & Infrastructure Ltd. behalf of the State Government for disbursement. The fact in the year under consideration are same as it was for the earlier assessment year followed

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

438) and CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1990) 188 ITR 44 to emphasize that non-maintenance of day-to-day stock register can lead to rejection of books of accounts as per provisions of Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

438) and CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. (1990) 188 ITR 44 to emphasize that non-maintenance of day-to-day stock register can lead to rejection of books of accounts as per provisions of Section 145 of the Act. The ratio of the decision in the case of Rainbow Metals (India) — reported in 83 Taxman 160 — can also

M/S JAIPUR COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS,404,4TH FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR MODE, TONK ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2), JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS amount deducted, to the treasury of the Central Government. For claiming expenditure and arriving at the taxable income, the Income Tax Act states twin conditions- allowance of expenditure as per Section 30 to 37 and non-allowable expenditure as per Sections 40, 438

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

438(total of 11a to 11g)\nin schedule Ol.\"\nThe appellant aggrieved with the disallowance made by the AO CPC, filed\nappeal which was adjudicated on 30.07.2022 with the following remarks of\nCIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi -\n“5.3 Ground No 2: Disallowance under Section 43B of the Act: The appellant has\nclaimed that an amount

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

438(total of 11a to 11g)\nin schedule Ol.\"\nThe appellant aggrieved with the disallowance made by the AO CPC, filed\nappeal which was adjudicated on 30.07.2022 with the following remarks of\nCIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi -\n“5.3 Ground No 2: Disallowance under Section 43B of the Act: The appellant has\nclaimed that an amount

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S GUNESH INDIA PVT.LTD.JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

TDS return and looking to the number of vehicles involved it is very cumbersome exercise. Thus, for the sole reason of reducing the compliance burden at the end of the assessee, it has appointed some of its employees as sub contractors, who were individuals and in most cases, were not liable to deduct tax at source (being not subject

M/S GANESH (INDIA)PVT.LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is also partly allowed

TDS return and looking to the number of vehicles involved it is very cumbersome exercise. Thus, for the sole reason of reducing the compliance burden at the end of the assessee, it has appointed some of its employees as sub contractors, who were individuals and in most cases, were not liable to deduct tax at source (being not subject

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. Therefore, the contention of the assessee duty drawn back shown in ITR not considered. This claim of the assessee is supported by the documents placed on record, 24 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT reflected the amount in the audited accounts and the ITR filed by the assessee and therefore, we note

RAMDAS TRADING COMPANY,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-TDS, ALWAR

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

TDS and it is in the nature of tax on income which has been collected at source in respect of specified business and the nature of goods as specified in section 206C of the Act. In light of above, the credit for TCS should be given to the assessee which is finally and lawfully assessed to tax in respect

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

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

section 199 read with rule 37BA. The ld. AR thus, explained that though the TDS has been deducted in A. Y. 2017-18 but the same was shown as to be carried forward in the year under consideration i.e. A. Y. 2018-19. In the light of this fact ld. AR seek necessary direction to the ld. Jurisdictional

OM PRAKASH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao & Thereby Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 2,24,438/-. Thus, The Action Of Ld. Cit (A) Deserves To Be Held Bad In Law & The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Deserves To Be Deleted.

section 271(1)(c) and levied a penalty of Rs. 2,24,438/- against the said addition of Rs. 6,66,781/- which was conceded by the assessee in the quantum proceedings. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. 4. Before the Tribunal, the ld. A/R of the assessee

MOHD. CONST. CO.,KOTA vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

438 has held that non maintenance of day to day consumption register can lead to rejections of books of accounts according to the provision of section 145(3) of I.T. Act, 1961. In these circumstances the provision of section 145(3) are clearly applicable in the case of assessee. As regards application of the profit rate, it may be mentioned

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS u/s 194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive

RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT सुनवा

438/- as reproduced at page 5 of the order of assessment. The above payments were credited in the bank account and the certificate of the receipt of those receipts were given to the ld. AO. Out of that credit the assessee made the withdrawal and therefore, considering the provision of section 69A of the 5 Ramdas Singh Tomar

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

TDS credit from this party have been duly considered in a different year. This ground is considered allowed for statistical purpose. 5.5 Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. Thus Ground No. 3.1 & 3.2 of the assessee are dismissed

SHRI AMBICA GARMENTS, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the assessee are disposed off in terms of

section 68 of the Act are not satisfied. However the appellant / Id. AR has submitted ledger account of Kotak Bank loan and made arguments regarding Kotak Bank Loan and contended that bank loan cannot be treated as unexplained and that the substantial entries are matching in the ledger account in Jai Shree Ram and Ambika Garments. Accordingly the addition