RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

RMS KARAMCHARI BACHAT AND SAKH SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

TDS\ndeducted of Rs.2,17,807/- and on the basis of said information, the reasons have been\nrecorded. It has been further submitted that after recording thesaid reasons, a notice u/s\n133(6) dated 22.08.2017 was issued to Punjab National Bank to obtain copies of bank\nstatements of the account in which such alleged receipts were credited. It was\naccordingly

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

80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. TDS return was filed delayed, due to which

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

section 194C the same cannot be considered as liable for TDS and coming to the balance amount of Rs. 6,67,740/- the bench noted that the said payment relates to hotel room booking payment and the same supported by three separate invoices of Hotel having value of Rs. 3,00,000/-, Rs. 1,87,740/- and Rs. 1,80

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

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

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

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

80 IA is not barred by any other decision of Honourable High courts. 43. Honourable Bombay High court in CIT V Godavari Devi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) [27-09-1977] has held that Until a contrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State, it has to proceed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

80 IA is not barred by any other decision of Honourable High courts.\n43. Honourable Bombay High court in CIT V Godavari Devi Saraf [1978] 113 ITR 589 (Bombay) [27-09-1977] has held that Until a\ncontrary decision is given by any other competent High Court, which is binding on a Tribunal in the State, it has to proceed

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

TDS not eligible for\ndeduction under Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37 [“Issue No. 2"].\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed. [\"Issue No. 3\"]\n3\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\n2.2 On examination of the assessment order dated 17-03-2021, the ld. PCIT

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such disallowance would ultimately increase assessee's profits from business of developing housing project. The ultimate profits of assessee after adjusting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80

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

80\ntaxmann.com 254\n(Punjab & Haryana).\nb. Commissioner\nof\nIncome-tax (TDS)-1,\nChandigarh\nV.\nCanara Bank [2017]\n79 taxmann.com 342\n(Punjab & Haryana).\nc. Commissioner of\nIncome Tax (TDS),\nKanpur v. Canara\nBank [2018] 95\ntaxmann.com\n81\n(SC).\nIndian Bank- Section

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 under which TDS was deducted submitted during proceedings u/s 263. Facts and Submission:- 1. The Ld. PCIT at Pg 18, Para 16(iv) of the order observed that assessee paid rent of Rs.8,74,00,000/- but in clause 34(a) of Form No.3CD the amount of rent paid u/s 194-IA and 194-IB liable to TDS

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS default when argued that the claim has been examined and accepted. Thus, in the litigation there must be a certainty and the settled issue should not be raised again and again when the revenue has already accepted the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for A. Y. 2009-10. We get support on this matter the view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS default when argued that the claim has been examined and accepted. Thus, in the litigation there must be a certainty and the settled issue should not be raised again and again when the revenue has already accepted the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for A. Y. 2009-10. We get support on this matter the view

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

TDS default when argued that the claim has been examined and accepted. Thus, in the litigation there must be a certainty and the settled issue should not be raised again and again when the revenue has already accepted the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for A. Y. 2009-10. We get support on this matter the view