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)

86,158/- which is liable to be disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that

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

MOUNT SHIVALIK INDUSTRIES LTD.,ALWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

86,372/- under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS. 2. That the Commissioner of Income

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS deducted under section 194 H and 194Q and claimed in the return was allowable to the appellant. Further And in support thereof the ld. AR also relied upon circular number 452 dated 17 March 86

SAURYA URJA COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

86,66,719. The working of\nproportionate credit of TDS as per rule 37BA, provided in the intimation is as\nunder-\nComputed of restriction of TDS based on Rule 37BA\nSl. No.\n01\n02\n03\nParticulars\nTotal Receipts offered to tax under various head\n(including receipts under schedule El other than the\nagricultural income part) in the return\nTotal

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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)

TDS under section 194C of the Act and the same is reflected in For 26AS of the Assessee and the Ld CIT(A) has erred in setting aside the issue for verification to the AO even when all documents are on record. 3. Ground Based on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

TDS under section 194H on such brokerage paid was duly deducted and deposited with the Income Tax Department. Moreover, payment of brokerage and Commission has also been reflected under sales and administrative expenses (Annexure-P) forming part of the audited financial statements of the appellant already available with the Income Tax Department. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) had overlooked this

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Section 143(3)\nof the Income Tax Act, [ for short Act] by ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur [ for short\nAO ]\n2.\nIn this appeal, the revenue has raised following grounds: -\n\"1. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nadmitting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962\nwithout

GIRDHARI LAL MEENA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

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

TDS was not deducted has been added in the computation of income. 3.2 In the assessment proceeding the ld. AO noted that the comparative chart for gross profit / net profit ratio of last two years shown by the assessee is in lower side in comparison to preceding year. As the gross profit declared by the assessee is decline therefore

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271C of IT Act was initiated in order dated 29.03.2014 under sec. 143(3) of IT Act for which reason appears that ld. AO also appreciated the bona-fide belief of assessee that no tax is deductible on payment to foreign Supplier, having no permanent establishment in India. 7 Isys Softech Private Limited vs. ITO High Courts and finally

STATE BANK OF INDIA,NEHRU PALACE, TONK ROAD vs. ACIT, DCIT-TDS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

TDS was done on 19.02.2014 and 22.03.2014. The spot verification order does not contain the section and approval details. Show cause notices (SCN) dated 16.12.2014 and 08.01.2015 were issued to the assessee for the FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Show Cause Notices do not contain any default amount. Thereafter the AO passed the assessment order on 19.02.2015 wherein

SHRI ASHOK DHARENDRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

section 192(IA) of the Act. So the amount received on which TDS was deducted is shown in advance received and not in the sales of the assessee company. Therefore the sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration. The flats are fully prepared in AY 2015-16 and then they are sold. On perusal of assessment record

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

TDS 9,303.00 Total 86,73,560.00 From the perusal of the above table and also as per the Interest expenses ledger (APB 68), it is evident that major portion of finance cost has being incurred on loans taken for purchasing any vehicle or equipment or real estate property for the assessee's business to the tune

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

86 of the Income Tax Act. As such, the investment can’t be taken in the category of exempt investment, of which income is exempt u/s 10. 1.3.3 The further allegation of the CIT(A) that M/s Naveen Tak AOP was not doing any business is completely wrong on the face of it as the ld.CIT(A) has himself

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

86 of the Income Tax Act. As such, the investment can’t be taken in the category of exempt investment, of which income is exempt u/s 10. 1.3.3 The further allegation of the CIT(A) that M/s Naveen Tak AOP was not doing any business is completely wrong on the face of it as the ld.CIT(A) has himself

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

TDS under section 194C of the Act while making the payment to such security agency. However, the payment have been made in cash to the security guards on behalf of M/s Bikaner Detective Security Service. The genuineness and the bona fide of the transaction are, therefore, not in dispute. The question that arises for consideration is what were the compelling