INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

8. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee when it is clear case of the assessee that there is contract, and it is bill of supply the provision of section 194C are not attracted. As regards the other obligations for TDS

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty so levied under section 271C is hereby directed to be deleted

TDS:- “It is well settled law that the penalty need not to be imposed in each and every case and discretionary in nature and the facts and circumstances of the case shall have to be taken into consideration. Section 273B of the Income Tax Act provides that no penalty under 8

DRAWMET WIRES PVT. LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

TDS u/s 194 instead of DDT u/s 115 O. Therefore there are various factual mistake in the return of income as well as in the challan which shows that the assessee has inadvertently and due to inexperience staff has shown this amount in the return of income as dividend declared during the year under consideration. Once the assessee has produced

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

8,020/- for TDS demand and Rs. 10,295/- for late deposit of TDS, which was not allowable expenses. The appellant by citing provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) contended that the same are not disallowable under this section

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

8,020/- for TDS demand and Rs. 10,295/- for late deposit of TDS, which was not allowable expenses. The appellant by citing provisions of sec. 40(a)(ia) contended that the same are not disallowable under this section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. MAN MOHAN KRISHNA, ALWAR

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

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

TDS, on payments to contractors, having not been deducted as required u/s 194C of the Act. 12. The Assessing Officer observed in the penalty order that since the assessee had declared loss in the income tax return, it was a case calling for levy of penalty under sub-section (7) of Section 270A of the Act. 13. In the course

M/S GOLD CREATIONS,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL PROCESSING CELL-TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS statement under section 200A of the Act. At the outset, we note that this Bench in the case of Geeta Star Hotels & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra) while considering an identical issue has held in para 6 to 8

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

8, 10 & 11). All other parties have deducted TDS u/s 194C. Even Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd., has deducted TDS u/s 194C on some amount and u/s 194H on some amount. From the copy of ledger account of Total Transport System Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice (PB 35-37, Tulsidas Khemji Pvt. Ltd. along with sample invoice

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

TDS, the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act cannot be invoked.” Hence, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Tekriwal (supra), we find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT (A) which is upheld. Thus the solitary ground raised by the Revenue

SPECIAL JUDGE COURT SC/ST,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed

8. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. It is now a settled legal proposition that the amendment to section 200A is prospective in nature and prior to 01.6.2015, the Assessing officer doesn’t have power to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. In other words, where the TDS

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

Section used for TDS. 8 Worldwelfare Health Federation vs. CIT (E) b) Secondly, the deduction u/s 194JB or any other

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

TDS and consequently no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is called for. 8. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

8) of section 270A. In fact, in none of the notices issued u/s 270A it was specified as to under which limb penalty proceedings was sought be levied. In all, three notices were issued to the assesse prior to imposition of penalty, and penalty was proposed to levy for following reasons: Date Particulars as mentioned in notice 26.11.2019 Underreporting

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

8) of section 270A. In fact, in none of the notices issued u/s 270A it was specified as to under which limb penalty proceedings was sought be levied. In all, three notices were issued to the assesse prior to imposition of penalty, and penalty was proposed to levy for following reasons: Date Particulars as mentioned in notice 26.11.2019 Underreporting

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

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

section 234E, the constitutional validity of which is challenged before us. ITA 660 to 664/JP/2017_ 8 Cantt Board Vs ITO (TDS

GOVERNEMNT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER TOOMLIKABAS, CHAKSU,CHAKSU vs. ACIT CPC TDS GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed

TDS quarterly statement cannot be recovered by way of processing under section 200A. Therefore, demand notice cannot be issued under this section, but if issued, then it is illegal. hence liable to be cancelled. 8

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-TDS, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS and only when the employees exercised this option and finally the shares are allotted in pursuant to the option exercised by the employees the liability to deduct tax at source would arise. The AO has not examined the fact whether during the year under consideration the option was exercised by the employees or it was exercised in the subsequent

BHIM SINGH,KOTA vs. DCIT, C-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS Rs. 8,77,903.00 the Ld. AO allowed Rs. 5,52,636.00 for this the Hon. CIT(A) have given clear direction in appeal No. 05/17-18 order dtd. 28.03.2019. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not deciding the issue & set aside for AO which is beyond the power of CIT(A). 5. That Appellant, craves to leave