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

section 194C(7), disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise if the assessee complies with the provisions of section

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

section 194C(7), disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise if the assessee complies with the provisions of section

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

section 194C(7), disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise if the assessee complies with the provisions of section

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

section 194C(7), disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise if the assessee complies with the provisions of section

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

section 194C, so not liable 11 Infoobjects Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT to deduct TDS. Hence, we would humbly request before your good self to kindly delete the disallowance made on the income assessee company and oblige.” 7

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 :

194C e.g. 2% & not at 20% by invoking the provisions of section 206AA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. V/s CIT(293 ITR 226 (SC)) upholding the order of Tribunal held that though the appellant assessee was rightly held to be an assessee in default, there could be no recovery of the tax alleged

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 :

194C e.g. 2% & not at 20% by invoking the provisions of section 206AA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. V/s CIT(293 ITR 226 (SC)) upholding the order of Tribunal held that though the appellant assessee was rightly held to be an assessee in default, there could be no recovery of the tax alleged

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 :

194C e.g. 2% & not at 20% by invoking the provisions of section 206AA. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd. V/s CIT(293 ITR 226 (SC)) upholding the order of Tribunal held that though the appellant assessee was rightly held to be an assessee in default, there could be no recovery of the tax alleged

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)

disallowances was made ignoring the facts that some direct purchases were made without contract and for some purchases contract entered by the assessee for supply of goods not for carrying out of any work and such contract does not fall in the definition of WORK as specified in clause (iv) of the explanation to section 194C of the Income

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 M/s. Danish Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 3. Before

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

disallowance can be made by invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, we confirm the order of CIT (A) allowing the claim of assessee and this issue of revenue's appeal is dismissed." 3. We find no substantial question of law is involved in this case and therefore, we refuse to admit the appeal. Accordingly

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

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 7,48,560/- U/s 40(a)(ia) and also ignoring the fact that provisions of Section 194C

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. MAN MOHAN KRISHNA, ALWAR

18. As a result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed

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

disallowed a sum of Rs. 16,47,267/-being 30% of the total amount i.e. Rs. 54,90,891/-, towards the TDS, on payments to contractors, having not been deducted as required u/s 194C of the Act. 12. The Assessing Officer observed in the penalty order that since the assessee had declared loss in the income tax return

FAREED ANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

7,67,899/- u/s 43B.” 2. Regarding ground No. 1, briefly the facts of the case are that the AO disallowed expenses incurred by the assessee under various heads u/s 40(a)(ia)of the Act amounting to Rs. 22,09,267/- on account of non deduction of TDS. During the appellate proceeding, the assessee took the plea that

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

7,34,800/-. This disallowance is for following expenses claimed by the assessee company and were disallowed on contravention of provision of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. S.No. Party Name Nature of payment U/s Total amount 1. Shyam & Co. Contract (Cleaning & 194C

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.

section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, 1961. Recently, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1184/JP/2018 vide order dated 08.03.2019 has allowed such expenditure following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 250 Taxman 16 wherein SLP filed

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.

section 36 (1) (va) of the Act, 1961. Recently, the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M/s K.S. Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1184/JP/2018 vide order dated 08.03.2019 has allowed such expenditure following the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. 250 Taxman 16 wherein SLP filed