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)

92,401/- taken by the appellant during the financial year 2016-17 under consideration as un-explained by upholding invoking the provisions of section 68 and determining the tax demand under section 115BBE of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer without considering the submission made and documents and information regarding unsecured loan already available on record, without appreciating

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

92,205/- (TDS demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

92,205/- (TDS demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

92,205/- (TDS demand u/s 201(1) Rs. 1,17,77,975/- & interest u/s 201(1A) Rs. 45,14,230/-) on the grounds that payments made to AOPs namely Ecco Development committees (EDCs) Van Surksha and Prabandh Samiti (VFPMCs) are not contract payments under the provisions of section

PARAS KUHAD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT - 7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee – Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that it would be necessary to examine relevant provisions of State Sales Tax Act and Rules to know as to who would be entitled to refund – Accordingly, Tribunal remanded matter to Commissioner (Appeals) – However

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 and deduction under Chapter VI-A was specifically raised. The same was complied by the assessee vide letter dt. 11.11.2019, 29.11.2019, 16.12.2019. The AO after considering the same completed the assessment as per the direction of DRP on 31.03.2021 at total income of Rs.5,99,74,92,230/-. 3. The Ld. PCIT issued notice

M/S. SATYAM POLYPLAST,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

92,787/- to various nonresident entities without making TDS. Accordingly, the AO has proposed to make disallowance of the said commission by invoking the provisions of Section

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

92,787/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” Once the payment in question is commission then the provisions of Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act are applicable only if such sum is chargeable to tax under this Act. As per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act the total income of non-resident includes all income from

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

92,635/- on account of non deduction of TDS u/s.40(a)(i)- Held, non residents service were availed only for opinion of certifying process- Since services rendered outside India and payments made outside Country and did not attract TDS provisions- Alternatively u/sec.9(1)(vii) fees for technical services, lab analysis fees would not fall into category of technical fees also

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

TDS by the assessee. The remedy against the loss of revenue in such violation of provisions of deduction of tax is two-fold. One is an order to be passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) and another remedy to make the compliance is disallowance of the said expenditure under section 40(a)(ia). Therefore, when the claim of expenditure

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

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

M/S JAIPUR COLONIZERS & DEVELOPERS,404,4TH FLOOR, MILESTONE BUILDING, GANDHI NAGAR MODE, TONK ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 6(2), JAIPUR

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

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

92,227/-. I have considered the assessment order of the Ld. AO and find that the assessee has claimed interest on TDS of Rs.92,227/- paid on violation of provision of the I.T. Act. The same is disallowed and added back to the income of the appellant. I have gone through the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench

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)

92,787/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” Once the payment in question is commission then the provisions of Section 40 (a) (i) of the Act are applicable only if such sum is chargeable to tax under this Act. As per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act the total income of non-resident includes all income from

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, with Central Bank of India and the bank the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act could be also deducted TDS of Rs. 92

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

92,787/- made by the AO is hereby confirmed.” Once the payment in question is commission then the provisions of Section 40 (a)(i) of the Act are applicable only if such sum is chargeable to tax under this Act. As per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act the total income of non-resident includes all income from

GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following Grounds Of Appeal:

TDS certificate. Lease rent of Rs. 2,92,739/- was received in advance for succeeding accounting year. (iii) Ground No.3 On the facts and in circumstances of the case the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining disallowance of following expenses:- (i) Dead Rent Rs.4,16,449/- (ii) Environment expenses Rs.2,00,640/- (ii) Salary & wages paid Rs.36