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

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 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

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

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

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

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

viii. Payment to related persons mismatch ix. Deduction under Chapter VI-A x. Deduction for scientific research xi. Other income not credited to P & L a/c xii. Mismatch in Income/Capital Gain on sale of land or building xiii. Loans/advance to related persons Consequently, a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08.04.2016 electronically and served upon assessee

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

viii) The argument of the Revenue in paragraph 5.1 of the Office Memorandum\nthat the Section and Scheme have left it to the administration to device and modify\nprocedures with time while remaining confined to the principles laid down in the\nsaid Section and Scheme, is without appreciating that one of the main principles\nlaid down in the Scheme

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

TDS thereon. Based on that observation the ld. AO concluded that the assessee gifted the chin, Kada, Gold & silver jewellery to various doctors or touts for soliciting admission in Nursing Home or Hospital which are completely prohibited as per CBDT’s circular no. 05/2012 dated 01.08.2012 and also as per provision of section 37 of the Act. Based on these