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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

TDS) passed under section 201(1) & 201(IA) of the Act holding the assessee bank to be in default for not deducting tax on the LFC claims of its employees which were found not eligible for exemption under section 10(5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

TDS deducted. Total 6,26,000/- These persons are not specified persons u/s 13(2) of the Act and the advance given is also not investment/deposits referred to u/s 11(5) and thus there is no violation of section

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

sections – 194A and 194H are fully declared in ITR i.e. either with same or higher amount than that appearing in Form 26AS, the entire TDS claimed u/s 194A and 194H deserves to be fully allowed. Hence the proportionate TDS disallowed to the extent of ₹1,79,551/- (₹2,09,560 – ₹30,009) i.e. TDS claimed u/s 194Q) is absolutely unjustified

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

TDS under the provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act? 5. Whether the provision of section 194C(6) & 194C

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

5,21,67,086/-) - Disallowance of Profit on sale of fixed assets (Rs. 44,93,014/-) and profit on sale of investment Rs. 83,31,72,239/-) while computing book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. - Excess levy on interest u/s 234C (Rs. 2,55,24,706/-) - Short Grant of TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved

UTKARASH SANASTHA,JAIPUR vs. THE CIT, EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

5. Details of all amount on which TDS is deduced, copy of MOU to prove that the same do not fall in business. In response to the above, no further submission furnished by the applicant. Hence, it is clear that the activities of the applicant trust are not genuine and conclusion drawn from above is under-  Assessee not submitted

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

5. On the both the direction ld. AO has passed an order giving his comments and the reads as under: AO’s comments: The contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the assessee was in fact liable for TDS under the provisions of section

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-2, JAIPUR

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

section 10(5) of the Act. Undisputedly, in the instant case the employees of the assessee have travelled outside India in different foreign countries and raised claim of their expenditure incurred therein. 5 SBI, Jaipur vs. ITO, TDS

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

5 and section 9 of the Act, the said commission payment on export sales cannot be held M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur chargeable to tax in India. In view of that, the provisions of section 195 are not applicable and thus the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) have wrongly been applied

STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground nos

TDS, Kanpur (supra) wherein the relevant findings are as under: “8. Having carefully examined the orders of the lower authorities in the light of the rival submissions and the documents placed on record, we 4 State Bank of India, Jaipur. find that as per provisions of section 10(5

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS Rs.22,23,578/-, TCS Rs.1,10,872/- and\nself assessment tax deposited on 31.03.2018 at Rs.16,60,000/-. The\nassessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act was completed by\nNFAC on 28.03.2022 wherein the\nincome was considered at Rs.\n1,10,04,980/- was assessed and thereby the interest was not correctly\ncalculated. The Id. AO rectified the mistake

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS Rs.22,23,578/-, TCS Rs.1,10,872/- and\nself assessment tax deposited on 31.03.2018 at Rs.16,60,000/-. The\nassessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act was completed by\nNFAC on 28.03.2022 wherein the\nincome was considered at Rs.\n1,10,04,980/- was assessed and thereby the interest was not correctly\ncalculated. The Id. AO rectified the mistake

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section (1A) ITA 660 to 664/JP/2017_ 5 Cantt Board Vs ITO (TDS) of section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. Though the provisions of section 234E was introduced with effect from 3 M/s. Gold Creations, Kota. 01.07.2012, however, the AO was not given the power to levy the fee while processing the TDS

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 and page 23 of the impugned order passed by ld. ACIT (TDS), Jaipur. Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. 2. That on the f acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT-A erred in sustaining the action of ld. ACIT (TDS), Jaipur in treating assessee company as defaulter for alleged violation of section

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

section 115BAC(5)(i) within the specified time limit, dismissed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\nNow, the assessee has come in appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds\nreproduced herein above.\n4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted his\nwritten submission as under :-\n“1. 1. The assessee Maya Rathore

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

5 as under :- “ 4. After hearing both the parties and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High court, the decision of the Coordinate Bench is hereby recalled to the limited extent of following grounds of appeal pertaining to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act : “ (ii) deleting the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- made