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

56,000 | Nil | Set aside\n| on account of reduction in\n| nature of land\nunder\n| litigation\n| Short credit of TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\n5\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

1) would stand obliterated If the contention of the Department is accepted then the department would be entitled to appropriate the moneys deposited by the payer even if it is not chargeable to tax because there is no provision in the Act whereby a payer can obtain refund-Sec. 237 r/w s. 199 implies that only the recipient

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

56]\n"....Section 37(1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS

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

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS of\nRs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As\nper the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students.\n2.\nThe AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit\ncard bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of\nRs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

1,27,13,424/-. The assessee while filling the return of income claimed the said income as exempt as per provision of section 10(37) of the Act and claimed the refund of TDS deducted on the said compensation. In the assessment proceeding ld. AO treated the said compensation as chargeable to tax as per provision of section 56

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS of Rs.21,850/- has been deducted. The same is also evident from Form 26AS. As per the contract assessee was to provide IT training to the students. 2. The AO observed that the assessee had made payment against credit card bills amounting to Rs.5,26,000/- and earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. Assessee has not responded

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

section 161 to 164 of the Act. Accordingly, once the respective shares of the beneficiaries are found to be terminable, the income is required to be taxed in the hands of that respective sharer or the beneficiaries but certainly not in the hands of the Trustees which has already been shown in the present case. Accordingly, AO’s action

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

56,00,362/- was considered\nas escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021\ncalling for filing of return of income for A.Y.2017-18.\nLd. AO noted that there was no response to the notice issued u/s\n148, a notice u/s 142(1

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

56,00,362/- was considered\nas escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 30.03.2021\ncalling for filing of return of income for A.Y.2017-18.\nLd. AO noted that there was no response to the notice issued u/s\n148, a notice u/s 142(1

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

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

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