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

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

50,000/- from the trust and violated the provisions of Section 13(2), no books of accounts maintained, TDS provisions

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. GNADHI VIDHYA MANDIR, CHURU

TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu “ A sum of 50% of the course fee will be paid to the Centre subject to the satisfactory support services provided by the centre to the student in terms of library, labs, practical and theory classes, training etc.” (vi) The appellant seeks to refer to section

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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)

50. Further, the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 and faceless assessment scheme issued vide two notifications each dated 12-9-2019 and 13-8-2020 under Sections 143(3-A) and (3-B) of the Act clearly stipulate that the provision of Section 127 of the Act shall apply subject to exceptions, modifications and adaptations as stipulated therein. In other words

RADHAKISHNA 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)

50. Further, the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 and faceless assessment scheme issued vide two notifications each dated 12-9-2019 and 13-8-2020 under Sections 143(3-A) and (3-B) of the Act clearly stipulate that the provision of Section 127 of the Act shall apply subject to exceptions, modifications and adaptations as stipulated therein. In other words

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, hence, when Ms. Tripta Agarwal is making the payment, it connot be treated as payment made by Mr. Arvind Kumar Agrawal.” 9. The ld. DR also supported that the payment made by the assessee to the builder not at time executing the agreement but it was beyond that date of agreement. The agreement mentioned

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ADD. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed

50,000/- from presumed expenses out of sale of electricity generated from the Wind Mill which is eligible for deduction u/s 80IA of IT Act.” Regarding 1st ground of appeal, briefly the facts of the case are 2. that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 80IA in respect of generation of power through its windmills amounting

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)(1) for failing to deduct tax u/s 195 to disallow expenditure to extent of Rs.26.75 crores by Assessment Order-CIT(A) held that amount paid to non resident sub-arranger was in nature of commission / brokerage and not fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1) (vil)-Consequently, CIT(A) held that there

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

50,60,966 to seven contractors, it failed\nto submit primary records substantiating these payments.\n3.1.2 Evasion of Summons by Key Contractors:\nThe AO issued summons under Section 131 to key contractors, including Shri\nMohd. Hamid and Smt. Shagufta Parveen in Jaipur. However, these contractors\nfailed to attend hearings, providing only limited responses by post. Their avoidance\nof personal attendance

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H on such brokerage paid was duly deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. Moreover, payment of brokerage and Commission has also been reflected under sales and administrative expenses (Annexure-P) forming part of the audited financial statements of the appellant already available with the Income Tax Department. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI vs. SHRI SATISH KUMAR, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A)

50,000/- is allowed under section 80C of the Act. However, in absence of proof for payment of Rs. 15,000/- to qualify for deduction U/s 80D of the Act, the same is rejected. Accordingly, the appellant’s ground of appeal on the issue is partly allowed.” 9. The ld. DR has relied on the order of the Assessing Officer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR, HIGHCOURT CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. LATE VANDANA AGARWAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. NISHIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

section 69A of the Act. The AO has further opined that there is a possibility that the amount of cash withdrawn from HDFC Bank was ütilized by her and after the declaration of demonetization the assessee is taking benefit of withdrawal entry in her bank account for depositing unexplained cash. 15 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 14. I have carefully

JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Passing The Order.’’

50 lakh out of Rs. 53,23,415/- is in the nature of security deposit ( interest free) is not correct representation of facts as the appellant is a public corporation and cannot park such huge funds, and that too as interest free. Moreover the said payments are on account of rent, hence TDS should have been done. 4.6 Under

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

50 C of the IT Act, 1961. 2.2 In ITA No. 753/JP/2023, the assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; "1. Under the fact and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs. 41,16,578/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the Learned Assessing Officer