M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

X 20 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 30. In the present case, undisputed facts are that the commission has been paid to various non-resident entities in respect of sales affected by the assessee outside of India, the services have been rendered outside of India and the payments have been made outside of India

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)

56(2) (x) i.e. deeming provisions, case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting of income - Held, yes - Whether further since in penalty notice revenue had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, mere reference to word "misreporting" by revenue in assessment order, for imposition of penalty

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)

56(2) (x) i.e. deeming provisions, case of assessee did not fall in category of under reporting of income - Held, yes - Whether further since in penalty notice revenue had failed to specify limb "under-reporting" or "misreporting" of income, under which penalty proceedings had been initiated, mere reference to word "misreporting" by revenue in assessment order, for imposition of penalty

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

x) of the Act. d) While processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act on 04.01.2019, the CPC had disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,04,776/- u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act on account of non- compliance with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, but the same was not disallowed by the AO during assessment proceedings. However

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)

x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form 3CD the auditors have reported that the assessee has made total amount

SOURABH SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. PCIT,JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

56,298/- and AO had impliedly accepted its contention and hence the order could not be held as erroneous. 5.3 As regards the amount it was found that due to the representation of the expenditure in the columns by the assessee as the expenditure of Rs 80,46,456 relating to sales incentive was shown under column

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

TDS of Rs.21,732/-. The impugned order thus, to this\nextent in nullity being without jurisdiction and therefore deserves to be\nquashed.\n6. Rs.6,35,00,000/-: The Id. PCIT, Udaipur in the impugned order\npassed u/s 263, raised an issue for obtaining new loans during the\nimpugned previous year of Rs.6,35,00,000/-. The impugned order thus

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

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

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

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

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

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

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

TDS, CST was routed through the profit & loss a/c in the books of the assessee company. Thus appellant prays addition so made may please be deleted. 3.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the disallowance to the tune of Rs.27,411/- made by ld.AO u/s 36(1)(va) arbitrarily

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

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

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, 1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of conditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the trust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce and cater solely

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

x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied its own mind which is mandated u/s 143(2) as evident

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

x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied its own mind which is mandated u/s 143(2) as evident

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

x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS has not applied its own mind which is mandated u/s 143(2) as evident