RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. Ground No 3: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. Ground No 3: Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

ACIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act. GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee

DCIT (TDS), JAIPUR vs. IDEA CELLULAR LTD, JAIPUR

Appeal are dismissed

section 201 r.w.s. 194H of the Act. GROUND NO. IV: GENERAL: The Appellant craves leave to add to/alter and/ or amend all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.” “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the assessee is liable to deduct TDS u/s 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the relation between assessee

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

TDS on Interest paid outside India or paid in India to a non-resident other than a company or a foreign company (Rs.23,09,26,264/-) and The issue of Dividend (as per section 115BBD) vs. Business Income (Rs. 9,82,58

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS being deducted. 9. Your attention in this regard is also invited to Instruction No.2/2014 dated 26.2.2014 issued by the CBDT. From the perusal of the same, it would be observed that in para 3 of the Instruction, it has clearly been mentioned that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

TDS being deducted. 9. Your attention in this regard is also invited to Instruction No.2/2014 dated 26.2.2014 issued by the CBDT. From the perusal of the same, it would be observed that in para 3 of the Instruction, it has clearly been mentioned that in a case where the assessee fails to deduct tax under section

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

58,76,990 TDS not applicable (HDFC&SBI) Interest paid to government departments 30,022 TDS not applicable Interest on unsecured loans 37,72,317 TDS deducted Interest paid to others (below TDS limit) 5,887 TDS not applicable Total 3,82,03,413 Add : IND AS adjustments 10,69,246 19 APM Industries Ltd vs. DCIT Add : Bank charges

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

58-59 wherein the payment of 20% of the consideration is duly noted. So long as the payment has been made over and above the minimum required payment, the conditions of the agreement has been satisfied 12 Arvind Kumar Agrawal vs. PCIT Thus the entire observations of the ld. PCIT were baseless and unsustainable in the eyes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. SAMARTH LIFESTYLE RETAILING PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

section 145(3) of the Income tax Act and G.P. rate why should not be taken @37.09% instead of 34.89% shown by you and addition of Rs.45770324/- (37.09-34.89-2.2%@2080469305/-) made to your total income for low net G.P. ratio." 11. The Assessing Officer considered the reply furnished by the assessee to the said show cause notice, and observed

SUNRISE REALCONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED ,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-BHIWADI, BHIWADI

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 69 of the I.T. Act and added to the assessee's total income. The assessee commission/brokerage from: Berry Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 25,52,624 (TDS of Rs. 2,55,262). Shimizu Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. - Rs. 5,55,557 (TDS of Rs. 58

AGRASEN MEDICAL RELIEF & RESEARCH SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. ITO(E), WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 12AA of the IT Act, 1961. In these circumstances, only because assessee could not place on record registration certificate issued u/s 12AA of the Act, the benefit of exemption u/s 11 cannot be denied. Further, Rs.1,58,000/- is paid by the assessee is fee for late filing of TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

TDS deductions, or banking transactions does not meet the\nthreshold for proving the genuineness of the claimed expenses. The appellant's\nfailure to provide primary supporting evidence, coupled with the non-compliance of\nsummoned parties, supports the AO's position that the genuineness of these\nexpenses remains unverified.\n2. Banking Channels for Transactions\nWhile the appellant has argued that conducting

DHARAM PAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Ld.

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining the reopening of the completed assessment without there being any cogent reasons having been given. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

58,17,320.\n10. The appellant craves his rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before\nthe hearing.\nSATISH CHAND KATTA ITA NO. 435/JPR/2018 AND ITA NO.\n436/JPR/2018\nGROUND NO. 1\n15. First, we take up the appeals filed by the assessee for the AY 2009-10 and\nAY 2010-11, ITA No. 435/JPR/2018

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter of Financial Year 2012-13 that intimation issued by AO TDS CPC was having date before 01.06.2015 and power to charge/collect fees u./s 234E of the Act for issuing the intimation u/s 200A came

AJMER VIDHUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, RAWATBHATA,RAWATBHATA vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, RAWATBHATA, CHITTORGARH

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter of Financial Year 2012-13 that intimation issued by AO TDS CPC was having date before 01.06.2015 and power to charge/collect fees u./s 234E of the Act for issuing the intimation u/s 200A came

AJMER VIDYUT NIGAM LIMITED, BHUPALSAGAR,BHUPALSAGAR vs. ITO (TDS), CHITTORGARH, BHUPALSAGAR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

58,100/- u/s 234E of the Act, for the alleged delay in filing quarterly statement of TDS in Form No. 24 for the 2nd quarter of Financial Year 2012-13 that intimation issued by AO TDS CPC was having date before 01.06.2015 and power to charge/collect fees u./s 234E of the Act for issuing the intimation u/s 200A came