INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

91,10,794/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. on which TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

91,10,794/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. on which TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ALWAR vs. ALWAR MALT AND AGRO FOODS MANUFACTURES COMPANY LIMITED, ALWAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

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

91,10,794/- during the F.Y. 2012-13 Alwar Malt and Agro Foods Manufactures Co. Ltd., Alwar. on which TDS was to be deducted @ 10% as per the provision of section

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS is not M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. covered under the section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and it is allowable expenditure u/s 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Ld. AO has made the disallowance without appreciating genuineness of claim and submission made therefore the disallowances so made deserves to be deleted.” 901/JP/2018 submission

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

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)(i) was warranted-Revenue's Appeal dismissed." 8.10 DCIT Vs. Avt Mccormick Ingredients Ltd. (2016) 137 DTR 0092(Chennai)(Trib) Business Expenditure-Interest, commission, brokerage etc. to a resident Disallowance Disallowance of Lab Analysis Fee-Non-deduction of TDS-Assessee company filed return of income with total income of Rs.12,91

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)

TDS as sufficient evidences have been allowing the relief u/s-90 (FTC rule 128(9). 3. As per the provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement of INDIA and BELGIUM country, Stated that if a resident of India derives income which, in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, may be taxed in Belgium, India SHALL allow as a deduction from

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)

TDS of Rs.7,45,838/-. The assesee went to Singapore in November 2020 and joined In Mind Cloud Pte. Limited. He has earned salary income from November 2019 to March 2020 to the tune of Rs.61,45,520/-(1,20,000 Singapore Dollars). The tax year in Singapore is the calendar year (January to December) i.e. an individual income from

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

Section\n144 of the ITA. At the time of the hearing, the assessee company submitted at the\nbar that it did not wish to press Ground No. 1. Accordingly, the said ground of\nappeal is dismissed as not pressed.\nGROUND NO. 2:\n79. In relation to Ground No. 2, the assessee company submitted before us that\nthe entire addition

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

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

TDS on amount of Rs. 1,76,23,934/- Thus, on account of this 30 % remaining amount of Rs, 1,43,91,971/- i.e. 43,17,591/- was liable to disallowed a sper provision of section

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 44AB of the Income-tax Act for more than 5 years.  Auditor’s remarks in Form 3CD were general in nature (stock register, valuation, TDS reconciliation) and did not indicate unreliability of accounts.The Statutory Auditor has given unmodified opined in the Audit reportfor the same year that Financial Statement of the assessee give a true and fair view

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 194C. Hence, assessee is not required to deduct TDS from payment made to PHL in connection with the manufacturing contract. CIT Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation (2015) 122 DTR 178 (AP) (HC) Fabrication of bus bodies on the chassises supplied by assessee involved sale and not works contract, hence TDS u/s 194C was not attracted. Once a finished

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)

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 3 For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that for the purposes of this

SAURYA URJA COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

91,980/-. The return of\nincome so filed was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act accepting the income\nreturned by the assessee. But the claim of TDS to the extent of Rs.\n86,66,719/- was denied because the income as reported in 26AS and in the\nreturn of income so filed were not matched.\n4.\nAggrieved, from the said

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

91 121-123 28 Rajendra Kumar Agrawal vs. ACIT D. Once an assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness, then it is for the AO to conduct a further enquiry and call for more details before invoking Section 68 of the I.T. Act 1. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif