THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

TDS\nDeposited\n1\nICICI BANK LIMITED\nIFPRT01273G\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\n05-May-2010\n2936021.00\n295567.00\n29556706\n2\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n8522.06\nR$2.00\n852.00\n3\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n38422.00\n3842.00\n3842.00\n4\n194A\n31-Mar-2010\nF\n05-May-2010\n54440.00\n$449.00\n5449.00\n5\n194A

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 was deducted. But here be\nthat it may TDS was deducted or not the nature of payment is\nrequired to be taxed in the hands

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

vii). This aspect is also covered by the ITAT order (supra). (PB 552-578). 4.2.2 Exhibition expenses: Similarly the exhibition expenses were incurred inmaking payment to various non-residents outside India on account of the stallbooking in different conferences exhibitions held outside India. Thus, the serviceswere rendered outside India and respective payments were also made outside India. Kindly refer

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

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)

vii) ITAT KOLKATA BENCH 'C' in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, LTU, Kolkata v. Century Plyboards (I)Ltd[2021]123taxmann.com256. (copy at PB page 164-189) In the case it was held that where assessee's own interest-free funds in form of share capital and free reserves were more than its investment yielding exempt

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

The appeal stands allowed

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

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

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.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

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

TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu Court observed that “Section 194J read with explanation 2 to section 9(1)(vii) provides that the predominant purpose to fall in technical services should be consideration for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services whereas in the assessee’s case it was an agreement in between the two companies

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)

vii) Anomaly in deduction claimed u/s 80-IC 3. It is submitted that there is no delay in deposit of employee’s contribution to PF as explained before the PCIT (Pg 9-11 of the order) and explained with reference to Ground No.2 below. There is no default 18 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT of non-deduction

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

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

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

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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- 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

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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- 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

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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- 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