JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

Section 132(4) and/or\nunder Section 131 of the Act have been explained in the affidavit filed on\n20.05.2013, The very fact that the search continued for as long as 36 hours\nindicates that coercion and undue influence were exercised by the authorities of\nthe appellantdepartment for making surrender. The affidavit filed by the assessee\non 20.05.2013 explained in minute

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

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) of the LT Act, 1961 and vide question 11\nof his statement he was asked to explain about the sale agreement executed by\nhim with Shri Nirmal Singh Anand and the amount paid by him in pursuance of this\nagreement In reply, he has stated that he had given only a sum of Rs.21,11,000/-\nand subsequently

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) wherein the\nassessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale\nconsideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari,\nImliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered\nsale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram\nKumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu\nRam Kumawat

JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

4) wherein the\nassessee was asked to explain the reason for difference in sale\nconsideration of flat at Ground Floor, in Plot No. 35, Chitragupt Nagari,\nImliwala Phatak, Jaipur sale agreement dated 03.11.2012 and registered\nsale deed dated 11.10.2013 executed by him with Shri Chhotu Ram\nKumawat, In reply the assessee has categorically stated that Shri Chhotu\nRam Kumawat

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

4,85,58,87,970/-. The AO after incorporating the proposed adjustments made by the TPO passed draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act on 28.12.2017 determining total income under the normal provisions of the Act at Rs. 453,88,97,023/- and Rs. 842,23,40,345/- under provisions of Section 115JB of the Act. Since

SURYA SINGHAL,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87 taxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs\nVegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192(SC) The Hon'ble\nCourt held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour of the\nassessee should be preferred.\n(b) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR\n159 (Jharkhand)\n(c) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

58,057/-. The assessee has declared total revenue receipt from the sale of property to Shri Rajendra Kumar Kedia. Perusal of sale deed, the Id. AO noted that the sub-registrar has adopted the sale consideration of property sold at Rs. 2,77,87,868/-. However, the assessee has shown sale consideration of property

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT,CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

TDS on account of non- deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it was an inadvertent error on part of accountant - Tribunal, thus, set aside impugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved to be upheld - Whether Special leave petition filed