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

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

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

SHRI SURENDRA GAJRAJ ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1018/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year: 2014-15 Cuke Surendra Gajraj, I.T.O., F-132 C, Road No. 12, Vki Area, Vs. Ward- 4(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abypg 2156 Q Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Rahul Pandya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

section 194H. That we have already submitted Copy of ITR & Copy of Computation of Total Income of Shri Vikram Singh Kulhari, Shri Rameshwar Singh & M/s. Surendra Gajraj HUF told AO. It would be observed that the said person have surrendered the income of Commission & paid the due taxes. Thus Double Taxation cannot be levied (kindly Refer Page

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 37 of the Act, the expenditure of hotelstay of JRs. 1,17,1477- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Since, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the Penalty proceedings u/s 27100(c) of the Act is hereby separately initiated for fumishing inaccurate particulars of income

MAHESH CHAND GOYAL,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmahesh Chand Goyal, H-6, Rishi Trading Co., Newanaj Mandi, Alwar 301001 Pan No.:Abtpg9841M ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance of TDS credit on proportionate basis whereas the receipts us 194A, 194H and 1941 are already disclosed by the assessee in his ITR also. The mechanism adopted by the Ld. Assessing Officer is arbitrary in nature and therefore, bad in law. Hence the intimation passed u/s 143(1) be quashed. 2 The Ld. Assessing Officer provided the mechanism

LALITA DEVI SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1410/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Lalita Devi Sharma Murlidhar Sharma Dhani Vs. Harsaura, Baskhoh, Jaipur Baskho, Jaipur अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: HCPPS 0547 Q प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless assessment Unit [ for short AO]. 2 Lalita Devi Sharma vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not deciding the appeal of the assessee on merits and dismissing it as inadmissible

APOORVA SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR

disallowance stand deleted. ” 10 Apoorva Sharma vs. ITO 3. Non Application of Mind by AO at the time of recording of Reasons: 3.1 It is important to note that in the instant case the reasons were recorded by the AO on 17.03.2017 on the basis of Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) showing the details of Form 26AS. In which certain entries

MANIRATNAM GEMS PVT. LTD.,BEAWAR vs. ACIT,C-2, AJMER

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

disallowance of office expenses Rs. 50,000. The appellant further, contend that the observation of the Pr. CIT that “As directed in preceding paragraphs of this order, the AO based on outcome of the his examinations and enquiries on various issues make the additions to the total income of the assessee wherever required per law by modifying the assessment order

M/S BHAGIRATH SHIKSHAN SANSTHAN,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (E), WARD-1, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs. 3,61,212/- being 30% of total expenditure of Rs. 12,04,039/- claimed by the assessee. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts & in law in not considering that even if the income of assessee is held liable for taxation, the tax is to be levied u/s 164(2) as AOP General

SANGA AUTOMOBILES (P) LTD,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 7,, JAIPUR

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

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

section 144 of the Income Tax Act, [Here in after referred as “Act” ] by the AO. 2 Sanga Automobiles (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT 2.1 At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 249 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation