ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

TDS provisions have to be read limited to provisions of section 194C(6) or have to be read together in terms of section 194C(6) and section 194C(7) of the Act. The relevant provisions read as under: 81 194C. 82(1) Any person responsible for paying any sum83 to any resident (hereafter in this section referred

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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)(ia) is also attracted wherever TDS on payment of 7 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur commission to a non-resident has not been made at appropriate rates. These provisions bar deduction of any payment on account of commission [fee for technical services] made to a non-resident, without making TDS

ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 M/s. Zila Paryawarn Sudhar Samiti, Jhunjhunu, vs CIT (Exemptions), Jaipur in Ist proviso to Section 2(15). Hence, the assessee fails condition (b) of the proviso. Further, such commercial activities are not the incidental but are pre- dominant activity of the assessee. Hence, the assessee also fails condition (a) of the proviso. Therefore, as per the proviso, such activity

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

2,33,862 8 KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, KOTA After evaluating rule 37 BA, I found that this rule envisages allowance of TDS credit in proportion to the income declared by the assessee. This proportion needs to be established for every nature of receipt on which TDS has been claimed by the assessee, therefore while allowing TDS

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

8. In the rejoinder to the submission of the ld. DR, ld. AR of the assessee submitted that it is not under dispute that the acquisition was made, and compensation was received as per provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ld. AR of the assessee stated that though the provisions of section 56(2)(viii) was amended

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)

section 56(2)(x) and the ld. AO has verified the issue the ld. PCIT cannot raise the same again so as to reverify the same and the contract of sale is formally entered into on 31.01.2018 so the stamp duty rate should be governed by the agreement dated 10.04.2015. 8. Per contra

STATE BANK OF INDIA (EARLIER KNOWN AS SBBJ),AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

TDS Ajmer erred in conducting the proceedings u/s 201/201(1A) and thereby\npassing the order dated 20.11.2018. The issuance of the notice and the passing of the\norder u/s 201(1)/201(1A) was issued by the non-jurisdictional AO whereas it must be\nissued by the jurisdictional AO (ACIT/JCIT-TDS) only. The assessment proceedings\nconcluded by the non-jurisdictional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

2) While determining as to\nwhether the compensation paid was for agricultural land or not, the\nAssessing Officer(s) will keep in mind the provisions of Section 28 of\nthe Land Acquisition Act and the law laid down by this Court in\n'Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Ghanshyam (HUF\" [2009\n(8) SCC 412] in order to ascertain

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

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

8 M/s Prime Oceanic Pvt. Ltd., Alwar Vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Alwar “Ground of Appeal No. 1 & 1.1: Under these grounds of appeal, assessee has challenged the disallowance of Rs,28,40,000/- , being Sales Promotion Expenses paid to foreign agent by alleging that assessee has failed to deduct TDS on such payment as per provisions of section

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, can not determine/change the nature of the transaction in the hands of trust. For example, the appellant has also deducted the TDS u/s 194JB for the payments due to Jaipur National University(JNU) which can not imply that JNU is not working for `Charitable Purposes’ u/s 2(15). ALLEGATION NO. 2 : As per Ld. CIT( E): “The applicant

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS 10. TDS Demand 8020/- 8020 NIL (Double Addition) 10. Receipts not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee has preferred present appeal against the additions/disallowances sustained

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. of TDS 10. TDS Demand 8020/- 8020 NIL (Double Addition) 10. Receipts not 2,85,311/- 2,85,311/- NIL disclosed(TDS deducted on same) Assessee has preferred present appeal against the additions/disallowances sustained

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)

2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that

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)

2. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in taxing amount of Rs 6,26,68,011 under section 68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

TDS deducted. No details of office rent paid\nbalance amount of Rs.3,97,500/- furnished by the assessee.\n7.2 In this regard, it is submitted that rent has been paid by Head office, therefore\ninstead of cash, assessee has credited head office, which is evident from leger of\nrent enclosed. It is further submitted that rent ledger could

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

2]\nOrder must be prejudicial to the interest of revenue\n6. P.C. Puri v. CIT\n[1984]\n18\nTaxman\n158\n(Delhi)\n[23.02.1984]\nThough not defined, the term 'prejudicial to\nthe interests of the means that the lawful\nrevenue due to the State has not been\nrealised. [Para 6]\nNo Deduction of TDS on Payment of Interest To Banks