ZILA PARYAWARN SUDHAR SAMITI,JHUNJHUNU vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS u/s 194C was deducted, ld. CIT(E) opined that the assessee society was carrying out activities of commercial nature i.e. activities in the nature of trade, commerce and business for consideration and with profit motive. 1.3 Income in Income and Expenditure Account from such commercial activities was calculated and it was observed that from

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

KRISHAN PAL SINGH HUF,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the Ld CIT (Appeals).

90 (Bangalore ITAT): 173 ITD 399. [12-10-2018]: In re : Income Tax Officer Vs Vinayak Hari Palled (See Para 13) IT: interest awarded on enhanced compensation paid by government for acquisition of agricultural land of assessee u/s 28 of Land Acquisition act would partake of character of compensation and would be eligible for exemption under section

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

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. 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

2(3), Alwar During the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO asked the assessee about the applicability of the provisions of section 9(1)(vii)(b) and further stated that section 195 is also attracted in the case of assessee and CBDT Circular No.7/2009 dated 22.10.2009 is also applicable in the case as well. Assessee submitted that such payments were

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

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

The appeal stands allowed

2. There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee has earned contract receipts of Rs.13,90,000/-. However the receipt itself cannot be taxed. What can be taxed is the income which is receipt minus expenditure. The assessee has not maintained the books of account. Section 44AD of the Act provides that an eligible assessee engaged in eligible

ABHINAV JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INT. TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 90/90A stating that foreign tax credit was never claimed in original return without considering the fact that declaration of not claiming complete foreign tax credit was explicitly mentioned in the Form 67 filed on 30th December, 2020 due to non- availability of tax proofs back then. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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)

2. There is no dispute as to the fact that assessee has earned contract receipts of Rs. 13,90,000/-. However the receipt itself cannot be taxed. What can be taxed is the income which is receipt minus expenditure. The assessee has not maintained the books of account. Section 44AD of the Act provides that an eligible assessee engaged

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

90,000/- was paid to Optimal media Solution Ltd. on contract basis on which TDS was required to be deducted @ 2% i.e. Rs. 1800/- however assessee deducted TDS @ 1% i.e. Rs. 900/- only and therefore in the auditor’s report amount on which TDS short deducted was shown at Rs. 45,000/- (considering that Rs. 900/- has been deducted

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

90,000/- was paid to Optimal media Solution Ltd. on contract basis on which TDS was required to be deducted @ 2% i.e. Rs. 1800/- however assessee deducted TDS @ 1% i.e. Rs. 900/- only and therefore in the auditor’s report amount on which TDS short deducted was shown at Rs. 45,000/- (considering that Rs. 900/- has been deducted

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

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

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

90,06,776.\n2. It was submitted before the lower authorities that when the debt burden of assessee's\nhusband Shri Satish Chandra Katta piled up and he was not able to pay interest but\nrather needed further money to feed the daily requirements of his incomplete business\nventures, he had to fall prey to the dictates of the money

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

2 1,34,90,000 Ch.No.141213 15/09/2008 ICICI Bank C Scheme, Jaipur 3 14,94,900 Ch.No.352562 19/03/2004 Vijaya Bank, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 4. 15,100 Adjustment of TDS vide challanNo.48378 dated 20/03/2014 HDFC Bank Thus, the peculiar feature of the case is that 90% of the sale consideration was received within just five days of the agreement

PRADEEP KUMAR ROCHWANI, JODHPUR,JODHPUR vs. CIRCLE (INTL TAX), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section is breached by the ld. AO. Thus, in the totality of facts and circumstances, it is not at all a case where the subjected assessment order should be alleged to be erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. There is neither error of law nor of facts. There is no erroneous assumption