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

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 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)

TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause why penalty u/s 271(1)(c

POOJA UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

5(1), Jaipur 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] “ 5.3 PCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC) “Section 4, read with section 271(1)(c

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)

c) as well as 13(1)(d) of the Act and held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under section 11 of the Act. In the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal, the Hon’ble tribunal held that the AO denied the exemption u/s 11 by following the decision of the jurisdictional High 23 ACIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

5 DHANRAJ SETHIA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR 271F Failed to furnish return of income as required by section139 before the end of the relevant assessment year. 272A(1) Refused or failed to: (a) Answer questions. (b) Sig. Statements. (c) Attene to give evidence or produce books of accounts etc. in compliance with summons under section 131(1). (d) Apply

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

5 State Bank of India vs. ACIT (TDS) brokerage etc. The Tax deducted has to be deposited by the payer to the revenue department on behalf of the payee. In case the payer doesn't deduct the tax at source, the payer is liable to pay penalty u/s 271C of the ITA. The provisions of Section 271C which provides

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1)(c)--Computation—Proceedings for levying the penalty under s. 271C were initiated vide order dt. 19th March, 2009 which fell in the financial year 2008-09 ending on 31st March, 2009 and the action for imposition of penalty was initiated on 24th Dec., 2009 when the reference was made by the AO to the Addl. CIT (TDS)--Accordingly

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

c) of the Act, which is imposable i.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:" In the first appeal, the Id. CIT(A) also upheld the penalty so imposed however, it was reduced from 200% to 100%, holding as under: “6.4 I do not concur with the appellant's contention that because of sheer ignorance wrong

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

c) of the Act, which is imposable i.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:" In the first appeal, the Id. CIT(A) also upheld the penalty so imposed however, it was reduced from 200% to 100%, holding as under: “6.4 I do not concur with the appellant's contention that because of sheer ignorance wrong

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 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The liability of the deductor u/s.\n201(1

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

c) of the Act, which is imposable i.e. 200% of the tax sought to be evaded, as computed below:" In the first appeal, the Id. CIT(A) also upheld the penalty so imposed however, it was reduced from 200% to 100%, holding as under: “6.4 I do not concur with the appellant's contention that because of sheer ignorance wrong

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

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

c) Deduction of export commission paid to foreign agents for sourcing of export orders in favour of assessee firm without deduction of tax at source under section 195 is to be allowed where export commission paid to foreign brokers is not chargeable to tax in hands of foreign brokers as contemplated under section 195 and is neither

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