SMT. VANITA TEKRIWAL,FLAT NO.715, SUN N MOON BELVEDERE PARK, SWAGE FARM CIRCLE, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

94(8) e Deduction under section 54B/54D 3e Nil f Short-term capital gain (3c+3d-3e) 3f 12896 However, this figure of Rs.12,896/- is shown in Part B-TI, column 4(a)(iii) (PB 14) and in Schedule CYLA, row no. (iv) (PB 22) which shows that data of Schedule CG of the return was not ported

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

94 CCH 0148 (Mum) 8. Other Supporting Case Laws: TDS u/s 195 w.r.t. Commission Paid to Agents outside India: 8.1 ACIT vs. IIC Systems (P) Ltd. (2010) 33 DTR 0422 (Hyd trib) 8.2 DCIT vs. Ardeshi b. Cursetjee & Sons Ltd. (2008) 7 DTR 0051 (Mum Trib) 8.3 Armayesh Global vs. ACIT (2012) 32 CCH 0159 (Mum Trib

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

94 taxmann.com 459 (Gujarat High Court) held that where in case of assessee, a dealer in scrap, AO levied interest and tax in terms of section 206C(7) on account of non-collection of tax source, in view of fact that asssessee had submitted certificates provided by buyers under sub-section (1A) if section 206C before appellate authorities, impugned order

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

94 taxmann.com 459 (Gujarat High Court) held that where in case of assessee, a dealer in scrap, AO levied interest and tax in terms of section 206C(7) on account of non-collection of tax source, in view of fact that asssessee had submitted certificates provided by buyers under sub-section (1A) if section 206C before appellate authorities, impugned order

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN PROP. MS BAJAJ RE ROLLING MILLS,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

94 taxmann.com 459 (Gujarat High Court) held that where in case of assessee, a dealer in scrap, AO levied interest and tax in terms of section 206C(7) on account of non-collection of tax source, in view of fact that asssessee had submitted certificates provided by buyers under sub-section (1A) if section 206C before appellate authorities, impugned order

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

7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section\n24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27\nof 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such\nreference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing\nOfficer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

TDS and tax\nrate to be applied on dividend income is in accordance with the law\nand thereby the order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the\ninterest of the revenue.\nThe Id. AR of the assessee while referring the finding\nsubmitted that Id. PCIT cannot partly accept the submission and\npartly not. She cannot set aside the assessment order

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)

TDS, Udaipur ignoring the penalty proceedings initiated after 7 years of the transaction is illegal & bad in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 57,940/- u/s 271C of the IT. Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend & modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

7 parties, these\ndocuments alone do not substantiate the actual occurrence and accuracy of the\nexpenses. In the absence of primary supporting documents like books of accounts\nand vouchers, the TDS and ITR acknowledgments do not serve as conclusive\nevidence. The AO, therefore, had justifiable grounds to question the authenticity of\nthe expenses due to insufficient documentation.\n3.3 Case Laws

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database\".\n2. In the re-assessment order

SINCERE ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE-7, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal no

TDS and self-assessment were Rs.39,94,450/-\nand reflected in Form 26AS. The return of income filed on 14.12.2021 at total\nincome of Rs.97,04,420/- was however, dismissed by the F.A.O., stating that “on\nperusal of departmental databse no trace of return was found on perusal of\ndepartmental database”.\n2. In the re-assessment order

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 was deducted submitted during proceedings u/s 263. 4 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT 6. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT has erred by holding that amount of club fees of Rs.2,08,800/- ought to be disallowed by the AO by:- (a) not considering the fact that assessee has incurred

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