ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. The finding of the AO was that the Permanent Account Numbers furnished cannot be accepted as it was not filed with the appropriate authority as required u/s. J94C(7) of the Act and whether such failure attracts and invokes the jurisdiction under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. At this juncture, we may refer the order of Coordinate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. The finding of the AO was that the Permanent Account Numbers furnished cannot be accepted as it was not filed with the appropriate authority as required u/s. J94C(7) of the Act and whether such failure attracts and invokes the jurisdiction under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. At this juncture, we may refer the order of Coordinate

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

TDS. The finding of the AO was that the Permanent Account Numbers furnished cannot be accepted as it was not filed with the appropriate authority as required u/s. J94C(7) of the Act and whether such failure attracts and invokes the jurisdiction under Section 40(a) (ia) of the Act. At this juncture, we may refer the order of Coordinate

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

94,075 194Q Sales made as Nil, as sales by kachaa 4 KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN VS DCIT,CIRCLE-2, KOTA Kachaa Arhatiya 30,009 3,00,09,181 arhatiya is not the on which TDS Turnover of assessee. made by certain Commission receipt buyers declared Total 2,33,862 In the present case the assessee has challaned the denial

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

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

94 (b) The income of a deductee being an association of person or a trust is assessable in the hands of members of the association of persons, or in the hands of trustee, as the case may be’ © the income from an asset held in the name of a deductee, being a partner of a firm or a karta

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

BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

7,94,000/- made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) out of salary paid; (iv) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,90,07,505/- made by the AO on account of disallowance of deduction claimed by assessee u/s 80G.” 3. In its first ground of appeal, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in not allowing

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