Search: TDS | BharatTax

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S MODERN INSULATORS LTD., JAIPUR

set off current year and brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Modern Terry Towels Ltd. against the income of the assessee company in directing to pass protective assessment order in case of assessee company presuming that no amalgamation has taken place following the scheme devised by Hon'ble Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Marshall Sons

GUMPTION LABS FINSERVE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO WARD -2(2) , KOTA

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

ITA 417/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

losses & depreciation of Rs.28,14,765/- A.Y. 2013-14 – 11,71,975 (A.Y. 2014- 15 – 14,86,911/- A= 26,40,866 Depreciation to be set off A.Y.2012- 13 – 15,407, A.Y.2023-14 – 64236, A.Y. 2014-15 – 94,236 B = 17,38,879 = 28,14,765.’’ 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee is relating to invalid assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajay Malik (CIT)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40a

loss set-off/adjusted, advance tax paid, self-assessment tax paid, TDS deducted, total tax paid, refund claimed for the current

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 522/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 May 2017AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (JCIT)

Section 272A(2)(K)Section 273B

loss to Department because late deposition of TDS was compensated by way of payment of Interest on the same, as per the provision of the Act. Hence, there was no mala fide intention involved. Quarter Amount of Date on which S.No TDS Due date of TDS deposition ( In form TDS deposited deduction No.26Q) 07th of the following month 1 April

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)

Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)Section 68

loss to the Revenue cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and if the AO has adopted one of the course permissible under the law or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an order erroneous and prejudicial

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 152/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT

Section 115JSection 250Section 32(1)(ii)Section 80Section 80I

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

ITA 443/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

set off of such loss under section 24(2).” Since, in the present case also, on conjoint reading of both first and second proviso, it is clear that no disallowance is called for where assessee deducts tax and pays the same on or before due date of furnishing Return of Income u/s 139(1). Similarly, as per second proviso, since

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 471/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 475/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA ,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

ITA 466/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 473/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS, ALWAR

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

ITA 470/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

ITA 474/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR TIGER PROJECT SARISKA,SARISKA ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD TDS , MOTI DUNGARI

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

ITA 472/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND FIELD DIRECTOR, TIGER PROJECT SARISKA (LOCAL AUTHORITY) ,SARISKA, ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), MOTI DUNGARI ALWAR

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

ITA 450/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 450, 466, 470 to 475/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17, 2009-10, 2010-11 to 2015-16 M/s Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska, Alwar cuke Vs. The Income Tax Officer (TDS), Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALC 1579 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue b

For Appellant: Sh. Saajan Saini (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) &

Section 201(1)

loss and their income are not chargeable to tax and considering that aspect of the matter the ld. AO be directed to relook all the aspect as argued and decide by Conservator of Forest and Field Tiger Project Sariska vs. ITO(TDS) passing a speaking order the TDS liability if any or not. Based on these observations

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 484/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta, JCIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 234A

TDS on interest payment of Rs. 15,97,572/- by ignoring the facts, settled legal position etc. Hence, the disallowance so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on record and hence the same may kindly be deleted in full. 5. The AO has grossly

M/S. RAJENDRA AND URSULA JOSHI SKILL DEVELOPMENT P. LTD,JAIPUR vs. PR.CIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 288/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. Amrish Bedi (CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

set aside to be made afresh, after giving opportunity to the assessee. Against the said order and findings of the ld. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur, the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. At the outset, we refer to the show cause notice dated 28.02.2020 issued by the ld Pr CIT and contents thereof read as under:- “3. On perusal

AJAY AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (IT), DELHI-1, CIT(IT) DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 637/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: MS Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 129Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 195Section 263

TDS. 1.10 Ld. CIT observed that the booking rights were in joint name with wife of assessee, the capital loss should have been assessed 1/2 in both the assessee and his wife. 1.11 Your honour as per guidelines issued by CBDT the AO was not allowed to expand the scope of scrutiny without obtaining prior approval from appropriate authority

DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

ITA 72/JPR/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Sept 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 199Section 37B

set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) Disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income) indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) Disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions

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

In the result the appeal no

ITA 973/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194A

set off loss was filed, such claim cannot be subject matter of a\nrevised return. Had the assessee filed such return, the possibility of revising such\nreturn on finding any error would arise.\n5. We may notice that under sub-section (1) of Section 139, every person whose\nincome for the previous year exceeds the maximum amount not chargeable