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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

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

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 provisions have to be read limited to provisions of section 194C(6) or have to be read together in terms of section 194C(6) and section 194C(7) of the Act. The relevant provisions read as under: 81 194C. 82(1) Any person responsible for paying any sum83 to any resident (hereafter in this section referred

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2(30) to mean \"a\nperson who is not a resident. . .\nThe Explanation to this sub-section provides that a citizen of\nIndia who leaves India for the purpose of employment outside\nIndia can be considered as resident of India, if he has been in\nIndia for 182 days or more even though he may have been in\nIndia

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

TDS u/s. 194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered