ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee might have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search assessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]\"\n8.4 PCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC)wherein, it was held as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous\nyear relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee\nmight have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search\nassessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]\"\n8.4\nPCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC)wherein, it was\nheld as under

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

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said date of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on records. Yours faithfully, 4 ITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR SEAL Office of : ACIT

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

TDS, Jaipur (ITA No. 1391/\nJPR/2024) dated 13.03.2025\nThe Hon'ble Bench in para 5. 1. and 5.2 summarised the position as under:\n7. The scheme of the assessment proceedings can't be equated with the scheme as\nenvisaged in section

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f. 01-04-2013 in view

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)(ia) is also attracted wherever TDS on payment of 7 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur commission to a non-resident has not been made at appropriate rates. These provisions bar deduction of any payment on account of commission [fee for technical services] made to a non-resident, without making TDS

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

1,44,13,853/- [30% of 4,80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. TDS return was filed delayed, due to which, the AO invoked the Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194C(6) and 194C(7) of the Act. He further submitted that Section 194C(6) provides that no deduction (TDS) is required

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

1)/(201(1A) of the Act to the ITA No. 145 & 146/JP/17 and S.A. No.04 & 05/JP/2017 State Bank of India, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, TDS, Jaipur assessee requiring to explain as to why TDS was not deducted on the amount of reimbursement of LFC. Since the said amount cannot be treated as exempt under section 10(5

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section\n271(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. If no one attends this office on the said\ndate of hearing, the case shall be decided on the basis of the material available on\nrecords.\n\nYours faithfully,\nSd/-\n\n4\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nSEAL\nOffice

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

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

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

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 9(1

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition on account of payment through credit card can be made. Facts & Submission:- 1. During the year under consideration assessee entered into a contract with QFS Consultancy Private Limited to provide infrastructure support services. Total consideration received by the assessee is Rs.13,90,000/- on which TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted