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 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

5 (Additional Ground No.1 ) relates to necessary direction may be given to the AO to allow the claim of depreciation on expenditure incurred in respect to acquisition of leasehold rights on land u/s 32(1)(ii) being business or commercial right of similar nature. The appellant has submitted that such rights have been acquired for carrying on the business

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 5, of the Income-tax\nAct, 1961 Residential status (Individual) Assessment\nyear 2013-14 - Assessee had shifted to Korea for purpose\nof employment and received salary in Korea Assessing\nOfficer made addition in respect of income earned by\nassessee from his foreign employer on ground that TDS

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

BAREFOOT COLLEGE INTERNATIONAL,KISHANGARH vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on\n20/02/2024

5 Related to Grounds of Appeal No. 7\n35. Please note in the ITR for AY 2021-22, as net business was reported in Schedule AI, there\nhappened mismatch from Form 26AS and company's claim of refund of TDS was restricted CPC\nwhile processing the ITR u/s 143 (1) (Refer to Paper Book No. 4, Page

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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

5 PM, where in it has asked the Hon'ble court to stay these\nproceedings under section 12AB, and restraining the DVO from valuation. This\nclearly shows that assessee is in no mood of co-operation and not willing to submit\nany further details and compliance, as the matter is time barred on 30.09.2023, and\nlots of opportunities have been

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

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

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

5) of section\n24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that Act.\n[Explanation 1]. —For the purposes

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

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

5. That the appellant has claimed before the A.O that since the income so remitted in the hand of the NRI is not taxable in India therefore there was no requirement to deduct any TDS. 6. That the A.O had cited CBDT's circular in this regard relied on explanation 2 to section