NIKHIL SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalnikhil Sharma, 6, Sangram Colony, C-Scheme, Jaipur–302001. Pan No.: Bijps 2623B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito,Ward-1(3), Jaipur – 302 001. ..... Respondent

194H of the Act @ 10% on commission payments made to the e- commerce platforms mentioned (supra). Consequently, applying the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act disallowance

CHOCOPACK ENTERPRISES,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance this claim of deduction as the assessee has not deducted tax as per provisions of section 194H. Accordingly, the AO made

SHRI RAHUL SINGHAL,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), however, the assessee has not made the deduction of TDS in respect of the payment of the said amount to the retailers/dealers. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section ITA 1029/JP/2018_ 3 Rahul Singhal Vs ITO 40(a)(ia) of the Act and disallowed

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, TONK

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

194H of the Act failing which the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are applicable. 5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. At the outset we note that the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in case of M/s Chocopack Enterprises vs. ITO (supra) has dealt with this issue of disallowance

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN,TONK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 194H cannot be applied on the assessee. Consequently disallowance made by the AO u/s 40 (a)(ia) is deleted

M/S AIRLINK INTERNATIONAL,B-6, SHAKTESH APARTMENT, MOTI DOONGRI ROAD, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowing the income tax debited to Profit & Loss account is Rs. 1,21,231/-. Accordingly, assessee filed return under section 44AD declaring total income of Rs. 1,21,231/- which is more than the deemed profit of Rs. 1,18,790/- under section 44AD of the Act. The AO CPC processed the return under section

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

194H on three air time provided to\ndistributors and under section 194J on roaming charges paid to other\nnetwork operators. These issues were different from the subject matter of\nreassessment order. The Delhi High Court held that the subject matter is\ndifferent since the Commissioner has found error in regular assessment\norder, hence limitation shall commence for regular assessment order

JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. JCIT, BHARATPUR

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

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.” Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta Vs. Jcit, Bharatpur

Section 194H of the Act the assessee has failed to comply with the obligation to deduct tax and consequently the AO disallowed

KAMLESH KUMAR JAIN,PACHPAHAR vs. DCIT-ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

sections – 194A and 194H are fully declared in ITR i.e. either with same or higher amount than that appearing in Form 26AS, the entire TDS claimed u/s 194A and 194H deserves to be fully allowed. Hence the proportionate TDS disallowed

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)

section 1941, not 1940", notwithstanding the fact that the appellant is a Kachha Adhatiya (Commission Agent) and registered with Baran- Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, accordingly shown Adat/Commission as gross receipt in the return of income and consequently erred in confirming disallowance of credit of TDS, u/s 194H

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs. 1,42,170/- due to late deposition of contribution to PF and ESI in violation of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, Respondent No.1 made the total addition of Rs. 2,03,34,571/- to the returned income of Rs. 48,63,850/-, thereby assessing the income of the Appellant

BHAGWATIKRIPA PAPER MILLS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

section 194H on commission of Rs.57,38,074/-. However, it is to be noted that the assessee has claimed only commission on sale of Rs.52,35,406/-. The difference in amount of Rs. 5,02,668/-remains unexplained. 4 Bhagwatipripa Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. Notices dated 09.03.2022 and 10.03.2022 were issued, whereby, assessee was asked to furnish explanation

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)

section 2(24)(x) of the Act 2. Perusal of the record also shows that one of the main reasons for selection of the case for complete scrutiny was "large outwards remittances by the assessee and to check as to whether appropriate 9 Gillette India Ltd vs. PCIT provisions of withdrawal have been complied with." This was basically for examining

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed a sum\nof Rs.1,68,64,596/- pertaining to donation in the computation of income\nand further no deduction u/s 80G was claimed. Since the same was not\nactually paid in FY 2016-17, it has been reversed back during FY 2017-\n18 in the books of accounts. As the same was already disallowed and tax\nwas paid

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. GEHLOT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. NATIONAL MOTORS BUILDING, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR-302003, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

194H by treating the same as brokerage/commission to salesman. Against this addition the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 27-12-2013 deleted the disallowance by holding that the same cannot be termed as commission or brokerage and therefore provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. GEHLOT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. NATIONAL MOTORS BUILDING, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR-302003, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

194H by treating the same as brokerage/commission to salesman. Against this addition the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 27-12-2013 deleted the disallowance by holding that the same cannot be termed as commission or brokerage and therefore provisions of section

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. GEHLOT ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. NATIONAL MOTORS BUILDING, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR-302003, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

194H by treating the same as brokerage/commission to salesman. Against this addition the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated 27-12-2013 deleted the disallowance by holding that the same cannot be termed as commission or brokerage and therefore provisions of section

MAYA RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ASSESSING AUTHORITY, JAIPUR

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

194H. Since income from Notus Tech Consulting Services Private Limited\nwas not received in the relevant AY 2023-24 but in next year i.e. was received in FY\n2023-24 and after calculating final income the assessee filed revised return on 25-12-\n2023 duly before the due date for filing revised return i.e. 31-12-2023 vide\nacknowledgement