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 amounting to Rs. 7,99,142/- debited to the Statement of P & L as an allowable business expenditure. 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) NFAC Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,89,07,63,321/- on account of deduction

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

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. 2. The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. 2. The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. 2. The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. 2. The Court finds that the order of the CIT(Appeals) reveals that

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

TDS. The assessee is a Non-Banking Finance Company which is engaged in the business of providing small loans, vehicle loans, small and medium enterprises loans in rural and semi-urban areas, issuing debentures etc. It is noted from the assessment order that due to change of incumbent, notice u/s 142(1) along with the questionnaire was issued

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

89,995/- and received fees for professional or technical services for Rs. 19,75,000/-, and the above amount was treated by the Ld. AO as unexplained income merely on the basis of AIR information while the assessee has filed his Income Tax Return under section 148 and duly declared his income as also shown in Form 26AS

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

89,00,000 49,00,600 44,10,540 1,34,93,90,060 0 Private Ltd Jalsagar Commerce 16-17 0 87,11,00,000 1,67,23,178 1,50,50,86 87,27,72,318 0 Private Ltd 0 36 Poojashish Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kota Vs.The DCIT, Kota All these details were before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD., KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018

M/S. MULTI METAL PRIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

89 lacs made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('ACT') on bogus share capital. But, the issue was whether there was any incriminating material whatsoever found during the search to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act. ITA Nos. 1024 to 1026, 1100 to 1104 & 1230/JP/2018 & 20 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018