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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

87,995/-confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which in clear terms provides that disallowance u/s ,40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee has not been treated as an `assessee in default

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

87,995/-confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) deserves to be deleted. 3.1 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) which in clear terms provides that disallowance u/s ,40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee has not been treated as an `assessee in default

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

SHRI KRISHNARAJ BUILDHOME PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

section 43 CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being the difference in the value/sale consideration of the of property as shown by the assessee at Rs.1,51,00,000/- and value adopted by the Sub- Registrar for stamp duty purposes at Rs. 2,77,87,868/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Learned

M/S. SATYAM POLYPLAST,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

TDS and consequently the provisions of Section 40(a)(i)are attracted. The AO then proceeded to hold that the payment in question is Fee for Technical Services (FTS) as the assessee has made this payment for rendering managerial or consultancy services by the non- resident persons. The AO accordingly disallowed the said amount

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

87,707/-, after disallowing a sum of Rs. 3,63,287/- worked out u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act due to non-deduction of the TDS; after disallowance a sum of Rs. 5,73,999/- worked out u/s. 14A of the Act; and after disallowance of a sum of Rs.75,000/-as per provisions of section

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ADD. CIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground taken by the assessee is allowed

section 80IB of Income tax Act. The lower generation of power than guaranteed by the Manufacturer being violation and breach of contract. Realizing the breach, the assessee Company was paid compensation of Rs. 33,87,883/- by M/s Suzlon Energy Ltd. Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, in the case of S. Zoraster

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

87,222/- and Contract receipts of Rs.1,54,46,700/-. As assessee has\nnot filed return of income for AY 2017-18 though having taxable income,\namounts as shown above aggregating to Rs.4,56,00,362/- was considered\nas escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

87,222/- and Contract receipts of Rs.1,54,46,700/-. As assessee has\nnot filed return of income for AY 2017-18 though having taxable income,\namounts as shown above aggregating to Rs.4,56,00,362/- was considered\nas escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the I.T. Act,\n1961. Accordingly, a notice

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 was also deducted. After the submission no enquiry was conducted and the issue of additional evidence filed were not discussed with while rendering the finding by the ld. CIT(A). 29 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT He submitted at page 85 and 86 being the acknowledgement of filling the online application for additional evidence relied upon

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS) JP (2017) 87\ntaxmann.com 184 (Rajasthan) and CIT Vs Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR\n192(SC) – The Hon'ble Court held that if, two views are possible, the view in favour\nof the assessee should be preferred.\n(e) CIT Vs K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC)\n(f) DCIT Vs Ratan Corpn

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS) JP. (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah & Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC); Deputy

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

87,801/- had escaped assessment on account of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate deduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

87,801/- had escaped assessment on account of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate deduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

87,801/- had escaped assessment on account of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate deduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act were initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda. A notice under section

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30 % of this amount liable to disallowed. Against this contention the assessee replied that the contentions raised is factually incorrect and the assessee has furnished the following breakup to the applicability of TDS on interest. The breakup of expense claimed under the head interest is as under : Particulars Amount (Rs) Remakrs Interest paid

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

TDS and the same has been duly deducted and paid. It is worthy to note that the income of Smt. Reshma Morani was under highest tax bracket (copy of computation of total income and ITR V are enclosed (placed on 1-5 of paper book)), this proves that there was no intention to save income tax liability. 5 M/s Morani