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

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

TDS on such payments under section 194C of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since, the work performed/done by the applicant trust are at the instance of\nconditions laid down in MOU/Agreement only and not out of the violation of the\ntrust activities. The activities of the Trust are in the nature of trade and commerce\nand cater solely

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

TDS was deducted on such income - Held, yes\n[Para 9] [In favour of assessee]\"\nWe therefore request you to kindly delete the Additions on Account\nof Salary of Rs. 29,86,963/- (HK$ 360000/-) received for services\nrendered in Hong Kong.\n3. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in\ntreating the Humble Appellant

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

1) of IT Act on account of payment made to Thompson\nProgrammatic Testing Centre through credit card against which assessee\nreceived consideration of Rs.13,90,000/- on which income is assessed by\napplying n.p. rate of 8% by not appreciating that when the income is computed by\napplying the provisions of section 44AD of IT Act, then no addition

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

1,51,00,000/- was executed on\n10/09/2008. Further, 90% of the total consideration was also received by the\nassessee within five days of the execution of agreement, which is evident\nfrom the details of payments quoted below :-\nS.No Amount (Rs)\nMode of payment\nDate\nBank\n1\n1,00,000\nCash\n14/08/2008\n--\n2\n1,34,90,000\nCh.No

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

section 271(1)(c), holding that assessee did\nnot voluntarily file his return disclosing income from various sources and had\ndeliberately concealed particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld\npenalty imposed on assessee - Assessee contended that matter of filing returns\ndid not come to his mind, as for last 20 years as a Judge, his returns used to be\ntaken care

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

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

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

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