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

73,140 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 6,41,42,000 | 6,41,42,000 | 1,41,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 15,33,95,189 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575\n| Service Tax Receivable | 1,93,00,000 | 1,93,00,000 | Set aside\n| Excess provision

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

TDS therefore as per provisions of section 195 read with section 40(a)(ia) the expenses of Rs. Rs.1,54,37,262/- on account of selling commission, Rs.17,91,586/- on account of exhibition expenses and Rs.88,410/- on account of testing expenses paid to non-residents cannot be allowed. Thus Rs.1,73,17,258/- are disallowed

DHANRAJ SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

73,416/-) in the P&L account. On perusal of details submitted by the assessee, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee had not deducted TDS while making payment of interest to these NBFCs and assessee had admitted this fact that he did not make TDS on payment of interest to the NBFCs during assessment proceedings. Since

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

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

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

section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given." 7. The revenue relies on the phrase "shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made" to contend that the assessee's TDS claim cannot be based on the receipts of M/s REPL. However

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 had been filed by the revenue before the said Tribunal. In that also, in paragraph (g) of the Miscellaneous Application, the revenue had submitted as under:— "(g )Because, although findings of the Tribunal are factually correct but the decision of the Tribunal is not acceptable because violation of the canons

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

TDS; after disallowance a sum of Rs. 5,73,999/- worked out u/s. 14A of the Act; and after disallowance of a sum of Rs.75,000/-as per provisions of section 37(1

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,50,000/- was brought to tax as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share capital and unsecured loan received by the assessee during the year. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the AO u/s 68 except an amount

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