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

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

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

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

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

194C(7) and disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise as held by the Coordinate Bench supra, accordingly, the impugned addition made thereon shall go and thus, ground no's 2 and 3

INFOOBJECTS SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1499/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Infoobjects Software India Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Private Ltd. Income Tax, 5-E Patrikayan, 3rd Floor Jhalana Circle-04, Jaipur Institutional Area, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCI8663B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/ Assessee by : Sh. Naman Maloo, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by

disallowance based on the evidence which were already presented before Id. DRP. The action of the Id. DRP is illegal, unjustified, and arbitrary, contrary to the legal position as set out in Section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Succinctly, the facts as culled out from the records related to the dispute carried in this appeal are that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

section 145(3) and a reasonable profit has to be estimated. The Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Udaipur vs . Inani Marble Pvt. Ltd. and ITAT Jaipur in the case of Sanjay Jain Prop. Mahaveer Transport Co. vs. ACIT Circle-5, Jaipur (ITA No. 164/2016 dated 31.10.2017) have held that profit rate declared in the preceding assessment years

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

3. CIT v Mahindra and Mahindra 242 ITR Statute 187 (SC) 4. A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax (Hyd) (2007) 105 ITD 423, Further, it is pertinent to bring the kind attention of your honour to the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which reads as under: Provided

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

3. CIT v Mahindra and Mahindra 242 ITR Statute 187 (SC) 4. A.P. Power Generation Corporation Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income-tax (Hyd) (2007) 105 ITD 423, Further, it is pertinent to bring the kind attention of your honour to the second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) inserted by the Finance Act, 2012, which reads as under: Provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

section 194C of the IT Act, 1961. Taking into account the entire conspectus of this case, I see no reason to uphold the findings of the assessing officer regarding disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs. 1,84,16,722/- in the assessment order u/s 143(3

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201 / 201A are applied; TDS liability should be considered only to the extent of TDS rates in force u/sec. 194C

ITO(TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201 / 201A are applied; TDS liability should be considered only to the extent of TDS rates in force u/sec. 194C

INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), AJMER vs. DIVISIONL FOREST OFFICER, AJMER

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 358 to 360/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 to 2018-19 Income Tax Officer (TDS), Ajmer cuke Vs. Divisional Forest Officer Ajmer LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No. JDHD 02557 C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sunil Porwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing :

3 of Ao’s order) & thus of same the provisions of section 206AA (Requirement to furnish pan or if Pan Not furnished TDS at 20% instead rate in force) cannot be applied. Thus even if provisions of section 201 / 201A are applied; TDS liability should be considered only to the extent of TDS rates in force u/sec. 194C

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

194C was deducted towards rendering, managing and 36 Career Point Limited, Kota. maintaining services by the assessee firm. Consequently, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee firm and assessed the income under the head ‘’Income from Business and Profession’’. However, ld. PCIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act erred in placing a restrictive interpretation

ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

194C of the Act. The second disallowance was made by the AO on account of interest paid to M/s. Tata Motor Finance. The ld. D/R has submitted that since the assessee has not deducted any TDS on the said payment, therefore, the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) are attracted and the AO has rightly disallowed the said amount. Further

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

194C of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the said payment. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same was disallowed. The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the ld. CIT (A) but could not succeed. 3

INDER KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 4-2, JAIPUR

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

Section 194C of the Act are not attracted. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I delete the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, ground No. 4 and 4.1 of the appeal is allowed. 12. Ground No. 5 of the appeal is against sustaining the lump sum disallowances of Rs. 5,00,000/- made out of various

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from undisclosed source. The terms of Section

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)

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 in taxing amount