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

90(2)"], "issues": "1. Whether the PCIT correctly invoked powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Whether TDS

MADAN LAL GUPTA ,RAMGANJ MANDI vs. ITO WARD 2(1), KOTA

TDS credit of Rs. 90,792/- deducted under Section 194Q of the Income Tax Act, stating that this was on turnover

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

90,52,139/- and accordingly the net freight charges of Rs. 14,81,570/- is credited in the Profit & Loss account. After considering the expenditure debited to Profit & Loss account, the net profit is Rs. 83,770/- but the income computed under normal provisions after disallowing the income tax debited to Profit & Loss account is Rs. 1,21,231/-. Accordingly

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS was made\non the amount of Rs. 1,31,17,690/- only. Thus the balance\ninterest payments of Rs.8,33,34,769/- pertained to the loans\ntaken from scheduled banks. As per the provisions of section\n43B(e) of the Act, such interest can be allowed only when it is\npaid before the due date for filing

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)

90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section

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)

90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals with the information received during search and seizure operations under Section

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

90 DTR page 26 has held that if the assessee has deducted the tax under wrong impression by applying wrong provisions of TDS the section

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

90 DTR page 26 has held that if the assessee has deducted the tax under wrong impression by applying wrong provisions of TDS the section

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)

TDS on payment of rent (v) Inadmissible claim of club fees (vi) Under-reporting of scrap sale (vii) Anomaly in deduction claimed u/s 80-IC 3. It is submitted that there is no delay in deposit of employee’s contribution to PF as explained before the PCIT (Pg 9-11 of the order) and explained with reference to Ground No.2

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

90,086/- instead of Rs.56,42,822/- claimed by the assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) at Pg 14 of its order observed that income is taxable in the year under consideration but the deductor deducted the tax in earlier year and included the same in the TDS return of that year. Therefore, the deductor should revised the TDS return

ARVIND KUMAR AGRAWAL,GURGAON vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOEM TAX DEPARTMENT

In the results, the appeal of assessee stands dismissed

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

90-107 in ITA No. 557/Mum/2023 dated 23.05.2023 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction to excise the power vested u/s. 263 of the Act as the assessee’s address as per the assessment order as well as of the return

MANISH GOVIND DANGI,UDIAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE (INTL.TAX), JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

90,00,000/- prior to 01.06.2013, when the provisions of Section 1941A did not exist on the statute. Hence, for the purpose of Section 1941A, it would not tantamount to consideration. Post introduction of the said. section, the appellant had paid only Rs: 40,00,000/-, which is below the prescribed threshold limit and hence, no TDS

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)(1) for failing to deduct tax u/s 195 to disallow expenditure to extent of Rs.26.75 crores by Assessment Order-CIT(A) held that amount paid to non resident sub-arranger was in nature of commission / brokerage and not fees for technical services in terms of section 9(1) (vil)-Consequently, CIT(A) held that there

SH. SWAPNIL AGARWAL,1, AGARWAL DHARAM KANTA, ADARSH NAGAR, AJMER vs. ITO(TDS), AJMER, AJMER

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

section 201(1) of the Act, 1961 for not deducting of TDS amount of Rs. 57,940/- on the payment made of Rs. 57,94,000/- at the time of purchase of immovable property. Therefore order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was passed on 28.10.2020 by creating demand of Rs. 57940/- of TDS default

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)

TDS on the commission. Consequently, provisions of section 40(a) (i) of the Act were not attracted for the purposes of disallowance of said amount. 9 Derewala Industries Limited vs. ACIT/DCIT 15. Applying the above cited decisions to the facts of the present case, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by Ld. CIT (A) deserves

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition on account of payment through credit card can be made. Facts & Submission:- 1. During the year under consideration assessee entered into a contract with QFS Consultancy Private Limited to provide infrastructure support services. Total consideration received by the assessee is Rs.13,90,000/- on which TDS

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

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

90 or, as the case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91. Explanation 2 For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the poses of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A Explanation