ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas to be allowed as deduction - Held, yes [Paras 5 and 6] [In favour of\nassessee]...”\n2.5. Thus, in view of the decisions set out hereinbefore, allowability of such interest\nexpense was one of the plausible views which was adopted by NFAC.\n2.6. It is a settled proposition that once a plausible view is adopted

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS deducted under section 194 H and 194Q and claimed in the return was allowable to the appellant. Further And in support thereof the ld. AR also relied upon circular number 452 dated 17 March 86 where in it has been clarified that so far katcha artia is concern , the turnover does not include the sales affected on behalf

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)

44 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT Explanation 2 inserted in section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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 be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

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 be applied wherein it was held that where there was no quantitative

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

44,842.\n13. It was submitted before the lower authorities that when the debt burden of assessee's\nhusband Shri Satish Chandra Katta piled up and he was not able to pay interest but\nrather needed further money to feed the daily requirements of his incomplete business\nventures, he had to fall prey to the dictates of the money brokers

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

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

sections of the statute. The verbatim findings of the ld. CIT(A) is elucidated as under:- “4.2 In the Statement of Facts, it was stated that TDS aggregating Rs. 15,27,44

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

CURRENT INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,BASANT VIHAR vs. ACIT, DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR , BABA SIDHNATH BAHWAN

TDS of Rs. 14,30,745/- for the assessment year 2019-\n20 was denied to the assessee, without affording any opportunity to the\nappellant of being heard.\n6. When provisions of section 154 of the Act have been read together in\nCourt, learned DR for the department has submitted that there is nothing in\n4\nITA No. 534/JPR/2024\nCurrent Infraprojects

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)

TDS involved is only 1% of the expense the additional tax liability comes to 33.99% of the sum which is further increased by levy of interest under section 234B and 234C. In most of the cases the total tax and interest liability comes to somewhere between 44

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

section 12AB of the Act, the assessee had applied for regular registration u/s 12A (1)(ac)(iii) on 22nd September 2022. e) In-depth inquiry was made by Ld. CIT( E), while processing the application for registration. A detailed reply running into 21 pages alongwith 27 annexures and the photographs of the Trust premises was furnished on 13/01/2023 ( Please

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR, TIGER PROJECT SARISKA (LOCAL AUTHORITY) ,SARISKA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA ,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

Section 254 2. That, the following observations of the learned CIT(Appeals) in the Order are perverse, arbitrary, baseless and misleading :- a. EDCs are Contractors as they were paid as per BSR rates similar to the Contractors. (para 24) b.The banks have also deducted the TDS u/s 192A. (Para 24.2) 3. That, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in overlooking