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

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

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

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

5) in case of travel outside India, and consequently the assessee is in ITA No. 145 & 146/JP/17 and S.A. No.04 & 05/JP/2017 State Bank of India, Jaipur Vs. ACIT, TDS, Jaipur default for not deducting TDS on LTC/LFC payments. Ground nos. 2 to 7 are accordingly dismissed.” 7. We now refer to the contentions raised

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

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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

section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act and addition made by Id.AO and confirmed by Id. CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions : 18 ITA No. 744/JP/2023 Narain Lal Agrawal vs. DCIT S.No PARTICULARS PAGE NOS. 1. Copy

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

2 to section 9(1)(vii) so as to bring it to tax under fiction created by deeming provisions section 9. ACIT,Mumbai Vs. PahilajralJaikishin(2016) 66 taxmann.com 30(Mumbai-Trib.) (d) Commission payment made by assessee to commission agents outside India for procuring export orders could not be brought to tax in India and as a consequence, TDS

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5 M/s. Zila Paryawarn Sudhar Samiti, Jhunjhunu, vs CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur (d) Section 2(15) defines charitable purposes which makes it clear that the assessee is engaged in charitable activities under General Public Utility (GPU) then it has to comply with the provisos mentioned in Section 2(15) of the Act. The proviso to Section 2(15) was inserted

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

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

5 of the judgment, their Lordships found that: 'Section 34 casts obligation upon Collector to pay interest after compensation is worked out. Section 28 puts similar obligation upon the Court when the Court finds that the compensation awarded under section 11 was inadequate. Therefore, there is no change in nature of interest either u/s.28 or section 34. Even if court

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

5 plots amount recoverable from concerning persons of all 22 plots has not been taken in books. The ld. AO stated that Shri Tejendra Pal Singh has taken loan & advances of Rs.31,50,000/- from the trust and violated the provisions of Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS

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

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

5) of the IT Act, 1961, treated the assessee bank to be an assessee in\ndefault within the meaning of section 201 of the IT Act, 1961 and raised a total\ndemand of Rs.1,22,731/- (Rs.96,133/- and Rs.26,598/-) under section\n201(1)/201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961 on the assesseedeductor bank, vide his order\ndated

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

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) for want of TDS. 6. During the year under consideration the assessee company made payment of interest of Rs. 2,23,929/- to various persons without deduction of TDS. The details of the payment of interest are as under :- 5

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

TDS deducted as per provision of section 194IA has not been placed on record even though as contended by the ld. DR. In the light of the facts so discussed the ld. AR of the assessee failed to convince that the agreement dated 10.04.2015 relates to the same property and therefore, provision of section 56(2)(x) should have

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)

5. The assessment order dated 31 May 2023 was passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.Further, at para 4.4.1 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that as the Appellant has not furnished a valid return of income, the assessment is proposed to be completed under section 144 of the Act, however the same was done under section