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)

70). Hence, the disallowance proposed by the Ld. PCIT is unjustified, unwarranted and beyond the scope of section 263. 26 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT Ground No.4 On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred by holding that no TDS

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

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)

70-72 Developers 8 Copy of DLC rates for the year 2014 & 2015 73-74 9. PCIT vs. Naina Saraf in DB ITA No. 16/2022 dt. 09.05.2022 75-80 13 Arvind Kumar Agrawal vs. PCIT 10. Benjudhar Gokulanand Biswal vs. National E assessment Centre in ITA 81-89 No. 202/Mum/2023 dated 29.05.2023 (Mumbai. Trib.) 11. Sulochana Saijan Modi

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

70,429/- towards Exhibition expenses and Rs.2,09,191/- towards Testing 3 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur Expenses without making TDS, in view of insertion of Explanation to Section

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

70 ITJ (Ahd.) 122\nalso states that addition on the basis of loose papers without any corroborating evidence cannot\nbe the basis for addition.\n1.7 In the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO (1991) 39 ITD 183 held that \"document\" which was\nfound at the time of search and which did not indicate whether the figures referred to quantities

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

70,05,416 was paid as a Fees for Technical Services and undisputedly TDS was deducted on it. Further, an amount of Rs. 38,41,373 was paid as a Royalty on which TDS was also deducted. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 2,39,757 was paid for other services and on this also TDS was deducted

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)

section 68 with respect to the fresh unsecured loan taken by the appellant with respect to 53 parties out of 70 parties in respect of which the appellant had failed to produce the balance confirmation during the course of assessment proceedings despite repeated requests and follow-ups by the Appellant from the parties from whom the loan was taken directly

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

TDS thereon by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. (a) The assessee firm paid, interest of Rs. 2,98,826/- to NBFC. M/s Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. and Rs.14,74,943/- to M/s Future Capital another NBFC. The assessee firm raised loan 2 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT from said NBFCs

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

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

70,000/- loss has been reduced to Rs.1,03,39,557/ As the assessee did not deduct TDS on interest payment made to the Kotak Mahendra Prime Ltd, the assessee should reduce the loss claimed by Rs.42,40,572/ Kindly find herewith attached also the copy of relvant B/S, P/L account & computation. 7 DCIT vs. RDB Cars

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

70,000/- received by cheque is added under section 68 of the Act. 30. Where an assessee has filed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an income nature and it is not necessary

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS section as 194C instead of section 194A. I find that this is additional ground of appeal raised by the appellant during remand proceedings. However, since the omission to include this ground in the form of appeal is not willful or unreasonable, the additional ground of appeal is admitted. I have considered the facts of the case, submission filed

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

70,33,180/- and not supported by any material evidence of income suppression. It is based on presumptions rather than facts and also disproportionate to the nature and size of the business. 6. The ld. CIT (A) erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to levy of interest u/s 234A and 234B, which becomes unjustified in view of the arbitrary

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ITA No. 975/JP/2017 is partly allowed for statistical

TDS by observing that amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2010 was retrospective in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by holding as under: “5.3 I have gone through the facts of the case and it is observed that the Hon'ble ITAT Ahemadad ‘B’ in case of Kanubhani Ramjibhai

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, ITA No. 975/JP/2017 is partly allowed for statistical

TDS by observing that amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) made by the Finance Act, 2010 was retrospective in nature. The ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee by holding as under: “5.3 I have gone through the facts of the case and it is observed that the Hon'ble ITAT Ahemadad ‘B’ in case of Kanubhani Ramjibhai

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

Section 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the Act as claimed by the assessee appellant trust. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Lower Authority grossly erred in confirming the addition made by ld. assessing officer of Rs 31,177/- on account of unverifiable creditors. 6. That on the facts

ACCME (URVASHI PUMPS) ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

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

Bench: : Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 316/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year : 2014-15 Cuke M/S. Accme (Urvashi Pumps) Engineers (P) Ltd. The Ito Vs. A-407, A/A Road No. 14 Vki Area, Ward- 4(2) Jaipur Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@ Pan/Gir No.: Aabca 5655 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respo Ndent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani, Ca Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena, Jcit-Dr Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/02/2020 ?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 27 /02/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per Vijay Pal Rao, Jm This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 24-01-2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds. ‘’1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Rs. 1,53,053/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The I.T. Act, 1961. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief

TDS, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) shall come into play. Thus, in view of the above, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) requires no intervention. The ground of appeal is dismissed.’’ The ld.AR has not disputed the fact that the assessee has not filed the requisite certificate in the form no. 26A to show that these recipient

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record, it is seen that AO has not carried out any investigation/enquiry