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

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 paid as processing fee to 15,35,737 banks Total interest paid as per Balance sheet and 4,08,08,396 shown

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS. Against all the five orders the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) who by passing a common order confirmed the levy of tax and interest for all the five years by wrongly describing purchase of packing material from different parties like Shakun Plastic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Satyan Industries totaling to Rs.163.34 Lacs as receipts of services.Now against

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS. Against all the five orders the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) who by passing a common order confirmed the levy of tax and interest for all the five years by wrongly describing purchase of packing material from different parties like Shakun Plastic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Satyan Industries totaling to Rs.163.34 Lacs as receipts of services.Now against

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED ,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS. Against all the five orders the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) who by passing a common order confirmed the levy of tax and interest for all the five years by wrongly describing purchase of packing material from different parties like Shakun Plastic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Satyan Industries totaling to Rs.163.34 Lacs as receipts of services.Now against

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMIITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR, ALWAR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS. Against all the five orders the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) who by passing a common order confirmed the levy of tax and interest for all the five years by wrongly describing purchase of packing material from different parties like Shakun Plastic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Satyan Industries totaling to Rs.163.34 Lacs as receipts of services.Now against

BHARATPUR DUGDHA UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LIMITED,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 321 to 325/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2019-20 Bharatpur Dugdha Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Village Madarpur, Madarpur Road, Bharatpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAATB 8926 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt.

TDS. Against all the five orders the assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) who by passing a common order confirmed the levy of tax and interest for all the five years by wrongly describing purchase of packing material from different parties like Shakun Plastic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Satyan Industries totaling to Rs.163.34 Lacs as receipts of services.Now against

CANTT BOARD,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 234E are onerous. Similarly, on the same parity of reasoning, we find the argument regarding condonation of delay also to be wholly without any merit. 19. It is now well settled that even though this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the power to declare a statute (or any provision thereof) as unconstitutional

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. 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 was made on commission paid to directors of Rs.52,41,000/- and 30% of this amount i.e. Rs.15,72

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)

72 67 176010100194129 4 2-11-2015 322612 Axis Bank 200000 - - 176010100194129 Total Rs.2023000/- All the above details have been submitted during the course of assessment proceedings as well as the revisionary proceedings and this has duly been accepted. Thus the complete part payment has been made by the assessee otherwise than through cash and the requirement of the provision

ACIT, AJMER vs. RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY, AJMER

In the result, the cross appeals are dismissed

TDS on such payments, therefore, the same is not allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) accepted the claim of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 14,72

RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY,AJMER vs. ACIT, AJMER

In the result, the cross appeals are dismissed

TDS on such payments, therefore, the same is not allowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT (A) accepted the claim of the assessee. However, the ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 14,72

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 40(a)(1) for failing to deduct tax u/s 195 to disallow expenditure to extent of Rs.26.75 crores by Assessment Order-CIT(A) held that amount paid to non resident sub-arranger was in nature of commission / brokerage and not fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1) (vil)-Consequently, CIT(A) held that there

RAJESH KUMAR JAISWAL,SHRAWASTI vs. ITO, WD 6(4), JAIPUR

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

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

TDS Muthoot Forex Limited 6,889 345 Vodafone M-Pesa Limited 51,769 2,804 Wall Street Finance Limited 1,14,098 6,900 Total 1,72,747/- 10,049 The aforementioned commission has been paid by the companies in respect of sub- agency related to money transfer by aforementioned three companies which is verifiable from the current bank accounts

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)

section 201(1) shall be authorized by 8 DCIT vs. RDB Cars Pvt. Ltd. him. In the present case. the certificate of accountant furnished by the assessee has not been furnished in accordance with Rule 31ACB as amended w.e.f. 19.02.2013. Hence, this certificate cannot come to the rescue of the assessee for non-deduction of tax at source from interest

V.R. POWEREQUIPMENTS PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PR. CIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS amounting to Rs. 72,813/-, the issue raised in ground no. 2.2(a) of the grounds and, therefore, the assessee is pressing the only issue which is raised in ground no. 2.2 (b). 3. The ld. A/R has submitted that the Principal CIT has held that the expenditure incurred on ISO Certificate is not revenue expenditure and, therefore, only

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

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

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

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Our Submission We submit that assesse during the FY 2013-14 has taken the unsecured loan of Rs 72,00,000/- from M/s Sanmati Gems Pvt Ltd, such loan has been received through banking channel only and duly recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The assessee also paid

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

72,95,533/- made by the AO for depositing the employee’s contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts. (ii) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) was justified in holding that employee’s contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision

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

72,95,533/- made by the AO for depositing the employee’s contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts. (ii) Whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT(A) was justified in holding that employee’s contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision