ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

47 (SC) 7. On the contrary, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and has further submitted that the AO has disallowed the Freight Expenses of Rs. 1,44,13,853/- [30% of 4,80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

47,690/- and income from other sources at Rs. 12,95,311/-. The appellant filed rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The same was rejected stating that the assessee has not correctly filled schedules in the return like BP/DEP/DOA/P&L/PART A-01 of the Income tax Return-ITR-4. Being aggrieved by the order

SPECIAL JUDGE COURT SC/ST,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

47,000/- u/s 234E of the Act for the alleged delayed in filling of TDS return. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) after considering all the reply and precedents passed the impugned order dated 09/05/2019 and his findings read as under: "I have gone through the order and grounds

NARAIN LAL AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS upon payment of flat booking since 27.06.2014\nand thereafter the consideration has been paid from time to time as per the\ndetails of the payment made available at page 50 of this paper book. In\naddition the Id. AR of the assessee also drawn our attention to the report of\nthe DVO dated 09.11.2023 wherein the valuation

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. Consequently, the ground of appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.” 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in levying 6 M/s Ready Roti India Pvt. Ltd. interest on late payment of TDS for 6 months instead of 5 months

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

47,299/- on account of 8 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR interest to income tax on TDS late payment and it is not allowable expenditure under 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 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, it is hereby declared that an order passed

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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)

47. We have noted the object of section 16(3) which has to be read in conjunction with section 24(2) in this case for the present purpose. If the purpose of a particular provision is easily discernible from the whole 15 Shiv Kripa Hotels Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT scheme of the Act which in this case is, to counteract

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)

TDS of Rs 42,00,400 was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the Appellant. Details of various documents filed during the course of assessment proceedings is as under: 11. Vide submission dated 30 January 2023 (PB 7-9), the Appellant submitted the following details: Particulars PB no Remarks Letter dated 7 10-13 The Appellant expressed

RADHAKISHAN 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)

TDS of Rs 42,00,400 was deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS of the Appellant. Details of various documents filed during the course of assessment proceedings is as under: 11. Vide submission dated 30 January 2023 (PB 7-9), the Appellant submitted the following details: Particulars PB no Remarks Letter dated 7 10-13 The Appellant expressed

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

47 taxmann.com 214 (2014). We give below the headlines of the decision of Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. V. Income Tax Officer: Section 195 of the Income-tax Act, 1961- Deduction of tax at source Payment to non resident (Explanation to section 195)-Assessment year 2007-08- Whether where amounts are paid outside India to persons outside Indian territory, who does

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

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

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 had been booked by assessee

SH. SWAPNIL AGARWAL,1, AGARWAL DHARAM KANTA, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER vs. ITO(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

section 271C of the Income Tax Act, by Addl. CIT, Range TDS, Udaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Sh. Swapnil Agarwal vs. ITO “1. The ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty order passed by Add. CIT, Range-TDS, Udaipur ignoring the penalty proceedings initiated after

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

47,418/- was considered was liable to TDS u/s. 194A of the Act and the assessee has made TDS on 37,73,317/- only thus as per provision of section

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

47,31,848\n1,58,48,129\n1,15,45,496\nNote: TDS credit, as restricted under rule 37BA, will be allowed to the extent of\nmatched credit.\n4.2.2 From the above it is seen that as against the TDS claimed in the return of\nRs.2,02,12,215, the AD CPC has mentioned that TDS claimed in the return

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory