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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

TDS has also been deducted as the same is chargeable to tax and therefore, it covers as per provisions of section 56

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 was as under: - Sec. Nature of receipts TDS as Amount Corresponding Income per 26AS shown in offered in ITR (₹) (₹) 26AS as receipts (₹) 194A Interest 1,05,991 10,59,897 10,59,897 194H Commission 97,862 19,56

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

56(2)(viii) of the Act. The case law cited by the\nId. DR was related to application of section 194A of the Act and\nthere is no dispute in this case the TDS

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 56(2)(viib) it clearly comes out that it has been brought on statute book from assessment year 2013-14 onwards and it is not retrospective nor its language in any way suggest that it is to operate retrospectively. (vi) In regard to Retrospective Legislation it is submitted that the general principle is that provisions in a statue would

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

56 (Mum) which judgments also support the submission of the appellant that in absence of services section 194J of the Act cannot be invoked. 4.12 It was further submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in case of ITO Vs. M/s. Rajasthan Knowledge Corporation Ltd vide its order dated 13.09.2015 held as under: ACIT, (TDS

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

TDS was claimed as deduction under bona fide belief as there were judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee on both the issues and assessee made a genuine claim, which eventually stood disallowed. It is not a case that assessee claimed any bogus/excessive expenses nor it is proved by ld.AO. With regards to the observations of CIT(A) order that assessee

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

TDS was claimed as deduction under bona fide belief as there were judicial pronouncements in favour of assessee on both the issues and assessee made a genuine claim, which eventually stood disallowed. It is not a case that assessee claimed any bogus/excessive expenses nor it is proved by ld.AO. With regards to the observations of CIT(A) order that assessee

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

56,23,509/- reported as interest paid by Assessee Company, is concerned, the same is as follows: • Interest paid to Indian Banking Companies amounting Rs. 23,09,26,264: With respect to this payment of interest amounting 23,09,26,264 made to Indian Banks, no TDS was deducted on account of specific exclusion contained in 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)

56-67 9 Copy of notice dt. 04.11.2019 issued by ACIT u/s 142(1) IT Act, 68-71 1961 10 Copy of assessee’s reply dt. 11.11.2019 in response to above notice 72-77 along with following documents:- 78 -Computation of total income 79 -Comparative gross profit and net profit ratios for three years 80-112 -TDS statement 113 -List

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

56,284.\n5.\nIn the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the action of the ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 to the total income of\nthe assessee. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the\nfacts

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)(i) applies in case commission to foreign agents-TDS u/s. 195 arises only if payment to non-resident was taxed in India as payments were made abroad, not chargeable in India-Commission payments to be judged from angle of Assessee and did not call for interference from revenue officers-Revenue's Appeal dismissed." 6.1.3 Similar view

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

section 272A(2)(k) being a new provision, branch manager was not known to its technical formalities; that thereafter, bank engaged an advocate for preparing statement, who found difficulty in completing detailed M/s Argus Golden Trade India Ltd. Vs. JCIT TDS, Jaipur statement in absence of PAN of all customers and that, therefore, there was delay in filing e-TDS

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

section 37 and as such there is no provision provided under Act empowering AO to make disallowance on adhoc basis despite fact that assessee consents for such disallowance during assessment proceedings. In view of above, addition made by the AO is rightly deleted by Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, ground of the department be dismissed.” First, we will take

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

56,000/- as commission to foreign agents and no TDS was done on such commission payments. Accordingly, the A.O. asked the assessee to explain the reasons for non-deduction. In response, the assessee filed its reply and contended that the payments was not liable to TDS as the same was paid to foreign agents who were non residents whose income

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS Rs.1,66,27,770/- Rs.1,66,27,770/- No of days 135 135 No of months as calculated by 4 months 15 days - taking period of 30 days in month No of months for calculation of Taken as 5 months by Taken as 6 months by interest considering part of considering the period the month as full from February

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56 ITR 376 (Mum) 5.2 The ld. AR of the assessee in addition submitted that the assessee has under bondfide believe not deducted TDS. The penalty has been levied after 4 years and therefore, the levy penalty is beyond the permitted time line. The ld. AO in the assessment proceeding considered the explanation of the assessee and has not initiated