CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance, by invoking section 14A r.w.r 8D, of Rs. 24,90,000/-. It is submitted that the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act allow a deduction for interest on 24 ITA NO. 201

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 made by Id.AO by ignoring the fact since the assessee is not in default within the meaning of section 201

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

201/- under section disallowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and claimed

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) cannot come into play either. To understand the effect of this proviso, it is useful to refer to first proviso to section 201

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 :

201(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 :

201(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 :

201(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

SHRI RAM SHARAN KATTA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

201 and consequently second proviso of section 40(a)(ia) is attracted, thereby restricting the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) on assessee. 10. Vide Finance Act 2012 w.e.f. 01/03/2013, second proviso has been inserted in Section 40(a)(ia), according to which if the assessee fails to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter

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)

Disallowance under section 14A, read with rule 8D is to be in relation to income which does not form part of total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration investment which has given rise to this income which does not form part of total income. Accordingly, in assessee’s case explanation to Section 14A does

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RDB CARS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of expenditure as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act.” 2 DCIT vs. RDB Cars Pvt. Ltd. 2.1. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for assessment year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring total income at loss of (-) Rs. 1,65,98,229/-and the case

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

disallow exemption in LTC Rules in case of foreign travel the same should have been specifically mentioned, but that is not so, nowhere in the entire section any such proviso/point appears. Also, it would be wrong to say that they have bent the interpretation intentionally against the intent and spirit of these provisions as: 1) The two basic conditions

VODAFONE DIGILINK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

201(1) of the Act." While deciding the above said questions of law, the Hon'ble High Court has held in para 43 to 48 as under: 7 M/s. Vodafone Digilink Ltd., Jaipur. “43. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 44. Now, the first question which has come up for our consideration is, ‘whether in the facts

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

201 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, as per second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), no disallowance there

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

201 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and therefore, as per second proviso to section 40(a)(ia), no disallowance there

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

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

disallowing due to non-deduction of TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201

R.F. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Assessee in ITA No

Section 201(1) which confines the immunity from recovery of tax from the failure the deductor on failure to deduct tax but the Instruction No. 275/205/95- IT(B) covers all the situation as visualized u/s 201(1) of the Act. In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. R.F. PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of Assessee in ITA No

Section 201(1) which confines the immunity from recovery of tax from the failure the deductor on failure to deduct tax but the Instruction No. 275/205/95- IT(B) covers all the situation as visualized u/s 201(1) of the Act. In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance