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

iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C(1) in relation

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

iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C(1) in relation

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

iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C(1) in relation

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

iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C(1) in relation

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS 1,44,565 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.1,41,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs. 71,75,575/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\n5\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.1,41,42,000/-\nRs.71,75,575/-\n\nAfter

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

6) of the Act. Before holding an assessee as \"assessee-in-\ndefault\" under Section 201, the AO must conduct an inquiry to ascertain the\ncorrectness of the default.\nSection 201 read with Section 191 of the Act the liability of the tax, which was\nrequired to be deducted at source, cannot be fastened on the deductor and in the\nevent

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

iii) CIT, Chennai Vs. Faizan Shoes (p) Ltd (2014) 48 taxmann.com 48(Madras) (f) The Honorable Apex court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd v. CIT(2010) 327 ITR 456(SC) held as under:  Section 195 of the Income tax Act, 1961- deduction of tax at source payment to non resident  Whether the moment a remittance

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Late payment of TDS) - Whether amount of TDS is not income tax for assessee but it is amount of income tax deducted and paid by assessee on behalf of third party - Held, yes - Whether thus, said expenditure incurred by assessee is wholly and exclusively for purpose

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

6. Feeling dissatisfied from the above finding of the Id. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds raised by the assessee, Id. AR of the assessee, has filed the following written submissions ; The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

iii) instead of under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. Appellant\nprays that disallowance of interest was made by ld.AO, after considering all\nthe facts as well as submission made by assessee and in light of decision of\nHon'ble ITAT passed in the case of assessee itself, therefore assessment order\nso passed by ld.AO after due application

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

6. Feeling dissatisfied from the above finding of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds as reproduced hereinabove. To support the various grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the following written submissions ; The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

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

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

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

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

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

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

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

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns