NIRANJAN LAL,KISHANGARH BASS vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), ALWAR

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

section 194H and 1940. With regard to TDS u/s 194H, total credits for the year was Rs.19,31,507/- and TDS was Rs. 96

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

SANTOSH CHOUDHERY,BARAN vs. ITO WARD-BARAN, BARAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

TDS, u/s 194H & 1940 at Rs 34,316/-as against claimed in the return at Rs. 2,96,580/-, by invoking the provisions of rule 378A of Income Tax Rules 1962, despite the fact that the said intimation passed u/s 143(1), does not contain any basis/justification for rejecting the claim of appellant that she (assessee) is a Kaccha Adhatiya

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

TDS by taking a view that circular has been withdrawn and treating the sales commission as fee for technical services. It is pertinent to note that this commission was given for procuring the export orders from outside India. Sourcing orders abroad for which payment had been made directly to the nonresident does not fall in the category of technical services

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

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC-TDS/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 201(1A) of the Act. However, the appellant received an additional demand of Rs. 2,18,843 as interest for late payment of TDS. To put it differently, the total interest on late deposit of tax deducted, was determined by CPC-TDS at Rs. 14,96

M/S. RATAN CONDUCTORS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1259/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Ratan Conductors, Cuke A.C.I.T., Vs. H-377(B), Road No. 17, Vki Area, Circle-4, Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Aabfr 8166 P Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Jaipur Dated 21/08/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs. 17,73,769/- On Account Of Non Tds:- That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & Facts In Confirming Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.17,73,769/- Paid To M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. (Rs. 298826/-) & M/S Future Capital (Rs. 1474943/-) On Account Of Non Deduction Of Tds Thereon By Invoking Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The It Act 1961. (A) The Assessee Firm Paid, Interest Of Rs. 2,98,826/- To Nbfc. M/S Barelays Investment & Loan (India) Ltd. & Rs.14,74,943/- To M/S Future Capital Another Nbfc. The Assessee Firm Raised Loan

Section 40 (a) (ia) the Legislature did not want to impose a new tax but wanted to ensure collection of TDS and the amendments made streamline and remedy the anomalies noticed in the said procedure by allowing deduction in the year when the for filing of the return. Remedial statues are normally not retrospective, on the ground that they

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

96,770/- on the said income declared in the revised return.\nThe assessee also filed the required Form 10-IE on the Income Tax Portal duly\nbefore filing the revised return of income but after the due date specified under\nsection 139(1) of the IT Act, 1961. However, the ld. CPC passed Intimation\nOrder under section

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)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by the Assessing Officer. 2 M/s Jaipur Colonizers & Developers vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id.CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing order ex parte on 28.04.2023, even though assessee had sought

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

TDS on above stated commission paid to its non-resident payees and which was subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble ITAT. Therefore the issue in this appeal is squarely covered and the amendment made in section 9(2) of the Act retrospectively by the Finance Act, 2010 has also been considered and found not applicable in the case

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

section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The action\nof the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may\nplease be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 12,16,500.\n4. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

JAMBO CREDIT AND THRIFT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO-6(1),, JAIPUR

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal Feeling Aggrieved By Order Dated 12.06.2024, Passed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2018-19, As Thereby The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Has Been Dismissed.

96,148/-under section 80P of income Tax Act, 1961. As per the TDS statement it is seen that all TDS

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

96,02,462 30,79,266 1,65,23,196 84.29% turnover 16. As it is apparent from above table, turnover to the extent of 84.29% is as per the recorded transactions in the books of accounts of the assessee which has been considered by the AO and only the balance turnover to the extent

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI MUKUT BEHARI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. SANGEETA MANTRI, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded

ACIT, CC-4, JAIPUR vs. SMT. ASHA JAIN, JAIPUR

In the result appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the cross

TDS being deducted on the payment of interest which is duly recorded in the books of accounts of assesse and not on the excess amount as alleged by Ld.AO and further confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). CO No. 15 & 16/JP2020 & others ACIT vs. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Mantri Appellant prays that such observation being incorrectly made deserves to ignored and excluded