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

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 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

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

8 and 9] [In favour of assessee]...”\n2.4.ii Resolve Salvage & Fire India (P.) Ltd. [2022] 139 taxmann.com 196\n(Mumbai - Trib.)[CLC - Page 56]\n"....Section 37(1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS

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

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

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

RASHTRIYA MILITARY SCHOOL,JAIPUR 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 1.6.2015, the Assessing officer doesn’t have power to charge fees under section 234E of the Act. In other words, where the TDS

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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)

8,05,089/- u/s 1941A and Rs 5,45,66,086/- u/s 1941B. Thus, as per clause 34(a) total Rs 5,53,71,175/- was subjected to TDS u/s 1941A and 1941B. Hence it becomes apparent that the balance amount of Rs 3,20,28,825/- of rent was paid without TDS and thus 30% of this amount

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)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed

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

8,11,\n12, 13, 20, 28,\n30).\n(Section\n263)\nany reasoning with respect\nto the order of AO being\nerroneous and prejudicial,\nhence, no finding by Ld.\nPCIT.\nb. Sufficient enquiry by the\nLd. AO + detailed\nsubmissions made.\nc. Assessment is under\nFaceless\nAssessment\nScheme having multiple\nteams, thus, proper\nverification done at\nassessment level

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

TDS compliance. The ld. AO categorically stated that the EDCs/VFPMCs does not fall into category of state government or local authority as per section 10(20) or section 10(46) of the Act or any sub-section 10 of section10 comes to the relief. The EDCs/VFPMCs are also not registered as per provision of section 11 and 12 or that