DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

57(iv):-\nIn this regard it is submitted that the same is not taxable under both the\nsections, because it is not taxable income. The sections provide\ntaxability of the income which is not exempt. As your good self\nmentioned that the same come into force w.e.f 01/04/2017. It is\nsubmitted that the same is not applicable in this case

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

TDS), Jaipur vs. Gandhi Vidya Mandir, Churu submitted its objections and reply whereby it argued that on the facts and circumstances of its case, provisions of Section 194J cannot be made applicable to it. However, the AO did not agree with the objection of the respondent assessee and given a finding that the services provided by the study centre

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

57,508/- under section 201(1) and 201(1A) for non deduction of TDS on interest paid to the above

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)

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 145(3) deserves to be held bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 57,05,309/- made by Ld. AO by applying a Gross profit rate of 6.71% as against 5.77% declared by the assessee without

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 145(3) deserves to be held bad in law. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 57,05,309/- made by Ld. AO by applying a Gross profit rate of 6.71% as against 5.77% declared by the assessee without

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS amounting to Rs. 2,53,077/- and Rs. 43,503/- under section 194 H and 194 Q respectively. The said figures are contained in the Form No. 26 AS which is placed at paper book page number 6 to 25. And even in the return of income for the year under consideration the assessee had shown Aadat ( Commission) totaling

SHRI AJAY MATHUR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

57,498 and as per the Salary Certificate, tax payable is NIL. 4. The learned C.I.T. (A) -2, Jaipur erred in confirming the penalty on the ground that return of income had neither been filed u/s 139(1) nor u/s 148 even though there was no outstanding tax liability and no tax had been evaded. 5. The learned C.I.T

ZILA PARISHAD,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

57,39,901/- along with interest under section 201(1A) of Rs.5,45,119/- totaling Rs. 62,85,019,/-. Later on the assessee was advised to file appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and accordingly the appeal 4 Zila Parisad vs. ITO TDS

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

TDS 24,63,929 72,93,236 97,57,165 Net Amount 1,64,92,993 4,92,82,848 6,57,75,841 Thus, reducing such amount of interest debited to their account of Rs. 6.58Cr. the effective actual interest free advances to the subsidiaries stood as to Rs.6.34

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

TDS 24,63,929 72,93,236 97,57,165 Net Amount 1,64,92,993 4,92,82,848 6,57,75,841 Thus, reducing such amount of interest debited to their account of Rs. 6.58Cr. the effective actual interest free advances to the subsidiaries stood as to Rs.6.34

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

TDS was deducted on a sum of Rs. 13,92,83,709/- only and hence the differential amount of Rs. 11,33,39,800/- is to be disallowed. • Issue II Dividend income of Rs 9,82,58,313/- earned from the assessee company's JV in Morocco was to be taxed as business profit subject to 30% tax instead

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

57 Taxmann.com 238 where it was held that furnishing of Form No.27C by the buyer has to be construed as mandatory only support the case of assessee in as much as assessee has filed Form No.27C to ITO(TDS). The SLP granted against Gujarat High Court decision in case of Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. would not mean that decision

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

57 Taxmann.com 238 where it was held that furnishing of Form No.27C by the buyer has to be construed as mandatory only support the case of assessee in as much as assessee has filed Form No.27C to ITO(TDS). The SLP granted against Gujarat High Court decision in case of Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. would not mean that decision

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

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

57 Taxmann.com 238 where it was held that furnishing of Form No.27C by the buyer has to be construed as mandatory only support the case of assessee in as much as assessee has filed Form No.27C to ITO(TDS). The SLP granted against Gujarat High Court decision in case of Siyaram Metal Udyog (P.) Ltd. would not mean that decision

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

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(2)(viii) r.w.s 145(B) of the Act. When the matter carried to ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition based on the reasoning supported by the ld. AO. Before

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

BHAGWATIKRIPA PAPER MILLS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 194H on commission of Rs.57,38,074/-. However, it is to be noted that the assessee has claimed only commission on sale of Rs.52,35,406/-. The difference in amount of Rs. 5,02,668/-remains unexplained. 4 Bhagwatipripa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Notices dated 09.03.2022 and 10.03.2022 were issued, whereby, assessee was asked to furnish explanation