PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

TDS could not be discharged by the assessee, therefore, it further establishes the violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD, SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

TDS), Kota passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A)r.w.s 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') both dated 15.07.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in both the appeal of the revenue are almost identical, are common and these both the appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), KOTA vs. ZILA PARISHAD , SAWAI MADHOPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.15 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years :2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: JDHZ00055G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.16 /JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Income Tax Officer(TDS), Kota. cuke Vs. Zila Parishad Sawaimadhopur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: J

TDS), Kota passed under Section 201(1)/201(1A)r.w.s 194C & 194A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') both dated 15.07.2019. 2. Since the issues involved in both the appeal of the revenue are almost identical, are common and these both the appeals were heard together with the agreement of both the parties and are being

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 on the payment of interest amount of Rs. 17,73,769/- paid to Barclays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. and Future Capital. The total interest paid by the assessee to the said NBFC is Rs. 2,98,826/- to Barclays Investment & Loan (India) 17 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT Ltd. and Rs. 14,74,943/- to Future Capital

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

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD) (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

section 194C of the Act, TDS is deductible @ 1% or 2% depending upon status of payee. In absence of specific details of status of payees and documentary evidences in support of the same, there was no option left with the Assessing Officer other than to consider TDS to be deductible @ 2% u/s 194C of the Act in respect

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

TDS provisions have not been\ncomplied properly. The president of the trust Shri Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni\nhas withdrawn huge amounts from the trust's account and utilized for personal\nbenefit. Total amounting Rs.2,52,00,000/- withdrawn by the past president, out\nof this amounting Rs.1,08,00,000/- transferred in the account of Sh. Rajendra\nGupta and remaining

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

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

TDS provisions have not been\ncomplied properly. The president of the trust Shri Tejendra Pal Singh Sahni\nhas withdrawn huge amounts from the trust's account and utilized for\npersonal benefit. Total amounting Rs.2,52,00,000/- withdrawn by the past president, out\nof this amounting Rs. 1,08,00,000/- transferred in the account of Sh. Rajendra\nGupta

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. PARADISE PROPERTIES, SAROJNI MARG, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).

46A of Income tax Rules, 1962 for admitting the additional evidence. As required by you we are submitting herewith the complete list of 62 persons along with their complete name, PAN, address, opening balances, new loan accepted during the year, interest credited, TDS, repayment of loan and closing balances along with confirmation of parties, copy of bank statement and copy

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 145. However, the appellant did not file sales register depicting that amount invoiced and amount actually received and offered to tax. The appellant filed copies of bank statement but from bank statement the invoices raised by the appellant cannot be correlated and it cannot be established that the alleged receipts are offered to tax. 5.7 In view

M/S STANFORD DEVELOPERS,NEEMRANA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , BEHROR

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

Bench: Him.

Section 68 correctly by treating the credit balance of Rs. 92,13,534/- as unexplained credits. The Appellant’s failure to provide conclusive evidence justifying the transactions with Shrey Associates leaves no scope for reversal of the addition. This Ground of Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10.3 As is evident from the above facts that the assessee in response to show

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

sections and the request for same made by Assessee during appellate proceedings and further erred in admitting the additional evidence in violation of 6 ITO, WARD 6(4), JAIPUR VS SMT INDU RATHORE, JAIPUR Rule 46A and not recording any reason as to why he was admitting the additional evidences. 2.4 On the other hand

AJAY KUMAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD1(3), JAIPUR

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

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, [In short “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Ajay Kumar vs. NFAC 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the application of the assessee u/r 46A of IT Rules

MONIKA JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

46A of Income tax Rules. The remand report in connection with the additional evidence was also received by the worthy CIT (A), NFAC 3. That the CIT(A) NFAC vide appellate order dated 25.10.2024, brushing aside the remand report, set aside the assessment to the file of Assessing officer by relying on amendment made in section 251 by Finance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. GOLDENDUNES HEIGHTS LLP, JAIPUR

Bench: Him.

section 142(1) of the Act dated 13.02.2021 was asked to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of loan transactions. The assessee submitted details and on perusal of the same ld. AO noticed that it has failed to justify the unsecured loan from the following parties. (i) Aventez Media Technology- The assessee has received loan