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

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

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

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

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

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

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

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

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

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

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\naccount of non-filing of return and on account of such erroneous and illegitimate\ndeduction. To bring this amount of income to tax, proceedings u/s 147 of the Act\nwere initiated in the case by recording reasons and after obtaining prior approval\nof the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda.\nA notice under section

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

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

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

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

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

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