ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

56 assessee's in a single documents, as all assessee's are the independent and separate also the reason recorded are different in each case and it is not possible that there shall be same reasons. Looking to these facts and record it is also held that the procedures and way of approval and satisfaction is not proper. Here

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

viii) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Brigade Enterprises Ltd[2021] 124 taxmann.com 237 (copy at PB page 190-196) it was held that Where Assessing Officer madedisallowanceofassessee'sclaimundersection14A, read with rule 8D(2)(ii) on ground that overdraft facility was directly used by assessee for making tax exempt investments but Commissioner

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)

TDS is shown at Rs.5,53,71,175/-. Accordingly, he held that 30% of the balance amount of Rs.3,20,28,825/-, i.e. Rs.96,08,647/- should have been disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 2. It is submitted that Ld. PCIT has not properly appreciated the facts. In the Profit & Loss A/c, assessee has debited rent expenses

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

56]25]000@& vk jgh gS tc fd LVWkd jftLVj ds vuqlkj 1]25]02]000@& vk jgh gSA nksuksa dk vUrj 68]77]000@& vk jgk gSA bl ckjs esa vkidk D;k dguk gS \ mÙkj 16 bldk tokc Hkh lsBth nsaxsA iz0 17 losZ ds nkSjku rS;kj eky yxHkx 92 Vu gS ftldh dher

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

56,560/- for financial year 2011-12 & Rs.40,49,97,468/- (till 27.02.2013) for the financial year 2012-13 was made to the Study Centres and the respondent assessee was deducting TDS U/s. 194C on payments made to these Study Centres whereas the assessee deductor was required to deduct TDS u/s. 194J of the I.T. Act on payments made

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

TDS was neither required to be deducted under Section 194A nor under Section 195, hence the order passed under Section 263 deserves to be set aside on this issue. 3. That the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur vide order dated 20/03/2024 passed under Section 263 of the LT. Act, erred in remanding the ground of revision

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

ITO, JAIPUR vs. RADAHA GOVIND BUILD ESTATE PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

RADHA GOVIND BUILDESTATE P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 468/Jp/2017 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 I.T.O. Cuke M/S Radha Govind Build Estate Vs. Ward 3(5), Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. E-4, Ganesham Tower, Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aadcr 0186 L Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent

Section 150 (2) of the Act, and (c) In further directing u/s 150 (1) to A.O. to initiate proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in case of appellant company for A.Y. 2011- 12 to 2014-15 for alleged significant suppression in sales without any cogent material or evidence. 2. That the Ld. CIT (A) is wrong and has erred

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 GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

viii)\nCopy of Reconciliation Statement showing Sale of Scarp and TCS\n113\nS. No.\nPARTICULARS\nPAGE\nNOS.\ntransactions\n(ix)\nCopy of ledger of TDS on rent showing transactions covered u/s\n1941 of the Income Tax Act\n114\n(x)\nCopy of Order of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur bench for A.Y. 2010-11\nbearing appeal no.761/JP/2014 and 14/JP/2015\n115

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot be ascertained as to when the PANs were obtained

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot be ascertained as to when the PANs were obtained

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot be ascertained as to when the PANs were obtained

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot be ascertained as to when the PANs were obtained