JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

1A Yamuna Path, Suraj Nagar (W), CPC, Bengaluru. Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFT 8528 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) Shri B.P. Mundra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

1A Yamuna Path, Suraj Nagar (W), CPC, Bengaluru. Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFT 8528 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) Shri B.P. Mundra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

1A Yamuna Path, Suraj Nagar (W), CPC, Bengaluru. Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFT 8528 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) Shri B.P. Mundra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

1A Yamuna Path, Suraj Nagar (W), CPC, Bengaluru. Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFT 8528 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) Shri B.P. Mundra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

1A Yamuna Path, Suraj Nagar (W), CPC, Bengaluru. Civil Lines, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AALFT 8528 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani (C.A.) Shri B.P. Mundra (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date

RAJASTHAN STATE HEALTH ASSURANCE AGENCY,JAIPUR vs. IT WARD -1(1), JAIPUR

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

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

section 201(1A) amounting to ₹23,46,390 may kindly be waived in full. The refund of amount of available balance in unconsumed challans that is Rs. 14,20,507, may kindly be granted to the assessee at the earliest. 5. The CIT Appeals has given ex-parte order due to non-filing of any submission or reply

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

1A: ‘The learned AO/CPC has erred in making adjustments under section 143(1) without giving intimation to the assessee of such adjustments, either in writing or in electronic mode, as per requirement of proviso to section 143(1), which makes the entire order of the learned AO/CPC bad in law and void ab initio.' Submissions: 1. It is submitted that

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 :

1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee – assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (A Division of Forest Department Like Assessee) vide Appeal order

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 :

1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee – assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (A Division of Forest Department Like Assessee) vide Appeal order

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 :

1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee – assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the IT Act. Considering & affirming the similar facts / pleas the LD. CIT(A), NFAC Delhi in similar type of cases of Divisional Forest Officer, Ajmer (A Division of Forest Department Like Assessee) vide Appeal order

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

section 201(1)/201(1A) and another remedy to make the compliance is disallowance of the said expenditure under section

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance either in writing or in electronic mode. Thus, the CPC center has failed to follow the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act. Your honour can verify that in the intimation made under section 143(1), f) CPC has not followed the above provisos by giving proper opportunity to the assessee to defend its case

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

disallowance was made wereprimarily payment to RTO's which can be categorized under following heads: Professional Automotives Private Limited vs. ACIT The appellant contention is that except Shasti, all the payments are basically in the nature of technical default which are compensatory in nature and the same can't be termed as offence/violation of law an the payments made

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1A) of section 10A to be merely directory and. not mandatory and, therefore, on that basis held that even if return of income was not filed within the time-limit prescribed by section 139(1), the assessee could not be denied deduction under section 10A. Instant Special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted to consider the following questions

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

1A) would be compensatory in nature and thus, was to be allowed as deduction. 6. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of M/s Chambal Fertilizers And Chemicals Ltd. Vs. JCIT DBITA No.52/2018 order dt. 31.07.2018 has held that education cess is not part of as accordingly, the same is allowable as a deduction and disallowance as 40(xii) cannot

SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR PAREEK,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 2(1A). 2. The ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing deduction u/s 54F while disallowing

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

disallowance without controverting the certificate so filed by the assessee. It is submitted that the Finance Act 2012 has inserted the proviso to section 201(1) to the effect. The same is quoted below: - Consequences of failure to deduct or pay. 201. [(1) Where any person, including the principal officer of a company,— (a) who is required to deduct