M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

establishes that the debited amount of Rs.28,40,000/- are just sharing of profit. As such the said amount is taxable in the hand of assessee company. Hence Rs.28,40,000/- is disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” On perusal of above, it is evident that observations of Ld. AO are quite ambiguous

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

permanent establishment. Article 8- Ships and Aircraft (PB 20) 1. Profits from the operation of ships or aircraft, including interest on funds connected with that operation, derived by a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), such profits may be taxed in the other Contracting State

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

permanent establishment in India. The ld CIT(Appeals) has discussed this matter in para 6 of his order and his finding has been given in para 6.3 on page 13 wherein he has held that argument of the assessee that since the non- resident persons to whom payments were made do not have a place of business or business connection

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

permanent establishment in India. The ld CIT(Appeals) has discussed this matter in para 6 of his order and his finding has been given in para 6.3 on page 13 wherein he has held that argument of the assessee that since the non- resident persons to whom payments were made do not have a place of business or business connection

JC FASHIONS,JAIPUR vs. ITO (T & J), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) because of CBDT Circular No. 7/2009 dated 22nd Oct. 2009. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 31,76,338/- against this, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee had challenged to reopening of the assessment. The ld. CIT however granted relief by holding that there

ISYS SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CIT (A), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

permanent establishment in India. 2. The ld. CIT(A) was not justified in disagreeing to different judicial pronouncement that period of 4 years from assessment year is the limitation to initiate and levy of penalty where there is no limitation prescribed under the relevant Act. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, though the quantum appeal of the Assessee

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

permanent establishment in India, hence the liability of TDS u/s 195 of the Act does not apply. Hence, the disallowance

ACIT, ALWAR vs. KALAS BIOTECH LTD., ALWAR

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

disallowance of the said amount of Rs. 4,81,562/- by invoking the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that the recipient of the commission is not having permanent established

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

permanent establishment in India and the service rendered is not in the nature of technical service. Facts of the case: The assessee, a private limited company, manufactures and exports leather garments and incurred expenditure towards commission paid to non-residents for the purpose of procuring orders abroad. The A.O disallowed

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)

Permanent Establishment in India) or reimbursement of expenses. (c) not considering the detailed reconciliation submitted along with documentary evidence in response to notice u/s 263 of the Act. (d) not appreciating the fact that clause 34(a) of the form only reflects the amounts on which TDS is deducted u/s 195 of the Act with regard to payments made

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

permanent establishment (PE) or any sort of business connection, directly or indirectly, in India 16. It was submitted that all these details and the evidences were admittedly submitted vide our letter dated 18.11.2015 to the AO and also before the ld. CIT(A) through a voluminous paper book. The AO examined the details thoroughly however, these facts & evidences were neither

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

establishing this fact. Thus, the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted in full. GOA-6: Rs.34,95,585/-: Disallowance of unverifiable temporary labour expenses. Facts: The ld. AO at Pg. 3 of the order held as under: “(V) Disallowance of unverifiable salary expenses: Assessee has claimed Rs. 7,13,22,676/ as salary expenses. Break-up of this amount

SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

permanently”. Such expenses are otherwise eligible for deduction in the subsequent years. 2.4 Thus, it is only a matter of difference in the year of allowability of the said expenses.What was claimed by the assessee firm in Year 1 has been 5 SHRI KHATU SHYAM BUILDERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR allowed by the Hon’ble ITAT

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

permanent establishment in India. None of the person to whom the payment is made has any PE in India and therefore, the income on account of sales commission does not accrue or arises in India. Hence, section 195 is not applicable on such payment. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that assessee has not brought any evidence on record

M/S. G.S. FINANCIAL CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

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

Permanent Establishment in India 2.2.iii All the services provided by Interactive Data Solutions (Europe) Ltd. to the assessee firm were provided out of India 2.2.iv No servers of Interactive Data Solutions (Europe) Ltd. were located in India 2.2.v There was no human intervention in the services provided by Interactive Data Solutions (Europe) Ltd. All the services were provided through

SHUBHAM LANDCON LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

permanent staff of the appellant. The workers were hired on daily\nbasis for construction work and register was maintained and signature or thumb\nimpression was obtained when cash payment was made to them. All the daily wages\nworkers are generally casual in nature who come from nearby villages/towns in City for\nwork and these workers do not work at same

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

permanent address and if they are the genuine parties, they should have some address. No person in the name of such party was found particularly when the summons were issued under Section 131 to those parties. If the transactions are genuine and if the parties have migrated somewhere else, their latest address should have been supplied and the burden

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

Appeal is allowed

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

establish ownership and agricultural use of the land claimed by the appellant. The contention raised by learned AR is that TDS credit has to be allowed to the person from whose income same has been deducted, notwithstanding any dispute regarding classification of income or title, particularly, when income has been declared and TDS reflected. 10. Admittedly, in his return