M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

90,469 | Nil | Set aside\n| written back\n| Disallowance of deduction | 3,72,56,000 | Nil | Set aside\n| on account of reduction in\n| nature of land\nunder\n| litigation\n| Short credit of TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

1)- During Assessment Year 2001-02,- Assessee was appointed by State Bank of India (SBI) as arranger for mobilizing deposits in its India Millennium Deposits Scheme (IMDS)- In turn, Assessee was entitled to appoint sub- arrangers for mobilizing IMDs both inside and outside India-Assessee explained that it mobilized deposits worth Rs.1235.8 crores and SBI accordingly provided it long term

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

The appeal stands allowed

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

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

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 liability would arise

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

TDS should have been deducted u/s 195. Since the so called service provider has been credited the amount from the freight commission of Rs.66,90,497/- received by the assessee company. Such as the income is deemed to accrue or arise in India u/s 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. Further, CBDT’s Circular No.7/2009 dated

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RVCF TRUST-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Within 30 Days I.E. On Or Before 13.06.2022. In View Of The Above The Physical Appeal Was Filed On 19.05.2022 Well Before 12.06.2022 As Directed In The Said Mail.

TDS”).(Copy of Income tax return and audited accounts at Paper Book page no. 2 to14) Trust Deed: The assessee trust was constituted vide trust deed dated 2nd June, 2008. The settlers of the trust are Rajasthan Asset Management Company Private Limited (a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956) and the trustees are Rajasthan Trustee Company Private Limited

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

TDS provisions have not been complied properly. Therefore, the assessee is not entitled for claiming exemption under section 11 to 13 of the I.T. Act, 1961. It was also submitted by the ld CIT-DR that in view of above findings, the activities of the assessee Trust falls under the purview of Section 12AA

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

INDIRA GIRI,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARMENT JAIPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Furnishing Itr, Therefore Deposit In Capital Gain Account For Compliance U/S 54(2) Was Impossible On The Part Of The Assessee.

section 54F (1)b of the Income Tax Act. 5.1.1. In the computation of income, the appellant had claimed Rs.1,20,380/- as cost of acquisition, which was supported by a purchase deed of both the property. The AO noted that that the total cost of both the property amounted to Rs.1,02,225/- (Rs. 87,725/- Rs.14

RAJESH KUMAR LAKHRAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-7(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 23.10.2022. 2 Rajesh Kumar Lkhran vs. ITO 2. The assessee has taken following grounds in this appeal; “1. The order of the assessing officer is erroneous on the facts and in the law. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case he should be considered

DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

TDS credit only to the tune of Rs.5,90,223/-, and accordingly, having regard to the fact that salary income was declared by the appellant, and in view of the provisions of section 199 read with section 37BA of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of Rs. 2,17,777/-. So far as receipt of rent

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

90,625) and possession of the same was also handed over to the buyer by the seller in pursuance of the four agreements as discussed above. The purchaser has provided the sale consideration to the seller in cash and through cheques on different dates as specified in the aforementioned sale agreements. In all the sale agreements, it is clearly written

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 the AO as all these assessment years were passed by the AO pursuant to the search

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)

1.—Income accruing or arising outside India shall not be deemed to be received 14 in India within the meaning of this section by reason only of the fact that it is taken into account in a balance sheet prepared in India. 8 Derewala Industries Limited vs. ACIT/DCIT Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory