INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer government which is sine qua non for attracting the provisions of section 194C. A total payment of Rs. 5,88

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

TDS) vs. Divisional Forest Officer government which is sine qua non for attracting the provisions of section 194C. A total payment of Rs. 5,88

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

Section 194A(3)(iii)(f) and\nunder the Notification No. S.O. 710 dated 16-02-1970.\n• Interest paid to Foreign Banks amounting to Rs. 1,81,37,163: With\nrespect to this it is humbly submitted that Rs. 1,81,37,163 was the\namount of interest which was paid to the foreign banks and TDS was\nduly deducted

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

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

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 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

TDS thereon by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act 1961. (a) The assessee firm paid, interest of Rs. 2,98,826/- to NBFC. M/s Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. and Rs.14,74,943/- to M/s Future Capital another NBFC. The assessee firm raised loan 2 ITA 1259/JP/2019_ Ratan Conductors Vs ACIT from said NBFCs

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

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

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

88,857.\n(b) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in\nconfirming the action of the ld. AO by not referring it to the Valuation Officer and\nadopting the market value of Rs. 90,06,776 without the said reference to the Valuation\nOfficer. The action

ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN URBAN DRINKING WATER SEWERAGE AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORPN LIMITED, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

TDS deducted on the said interest as per section 199 of the IT Act, such income on account of interest assessable in the hands of the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,13,22,611/- made on account

MILLENIUM BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands partly allowed with no 6

TDS), Kota of tax which has not been deducted under section 194-A from interest payment made to Hridaya Cooperative Credit Society and levying interest under section 201(1A). 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of AO of treating the appellant

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

88,811/- will be reduced from the profit of SEZ Unit and accordingly\ndeduction under section 10AA will be recomputed.\nTo the extent benefit of deduction u/s. 10AA was disallowed, the assessee appellant is\nin appeal before the Id. CIT(A) and the appeals are pending.\n1.16. That on the basis of Audit Objection [PB 671-678] wherein the purchase

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

88,076/- is being raised u/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the IT Act for F.Y. 2012-13 Q1. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Interest is to be charged as per rules. Intimation for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD) (TDS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

88,076/- is being raised u/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the IT Act for F.Y. 2012-13 Q1. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Interest is to be charged as per rules. Intimation for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

88,076/- is being raised u/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the IT Act for F.Y. 2012-13 Q1. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Interest is to be charged as per rules. Intimation for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. JOINT CIT(OSD)(TDS), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in all the cases

88,076/- is being raised u/s 201(1)(201(1A) of the IT Act for F.Y. 2012-13 Q1. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Interest is to be charged as per rules. Intimation for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is to sent to the Addl. CIT separately for non deduction of TDS on perquisites paid by the assessee. This