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

68,281/- when the assessee failed to furnish the information to prescribed authority in prescribed form as envisaged in section 194C

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

68,281/- when the assessee failed to furnish the information to prescribed authority in prescribed form as envisaged in section 194C

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS under section 194C

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

68 of the Act as unexplained credits disregarding the various evidences filed by the Assessee proving that the sub-contract work was awarded and executed by the Assessee and the fact that Dineshchandra R Agarwal Infracon Pvt Ltd had deducted TDS under section 194C

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 194C are not applicable on payments made directly to\ncasual labourers for wages.\nPercentage of labour cost to gross receipts varies depending upon the nature of project,\nlabour intensity, and stage of execution. Merely because the AO feels 13% is \"high\" does\nnot justify disallowance, especially without benchmarking against comparable cases.\nJudicial Precedents:\nDharmendra Prasad More, Balasore

GOVINDAM BRJ INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 194C are not applicable on payments made directly to casual labourers for wages. - Percentage of labour cost to gross receipts varies depending upon the nature of project, labour intensity, and stage of execution. Merely because the AO feels 13% is “high” does not justify disallowance, especially without benchmarking against comparable cases. Judicial Precedents:  Dharmendra Prasad More, Balasore

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

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

section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining an addition of 4,23,833/-/- by applying G.P. rate @ 2.75% as against 2.49% declared by assessee arbitrarily on estimation basis without appreciating the fact that assessee has declared better

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

68 of the Act. 30. Where an assessee has filed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of certain amounts of cash received during the accounting year, the assessing Officer is entitled to draw the inference that the receipts are of an income nature and it is not necessary for him to locate their exact source. As the Supreme Court

FAREED ANWAR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

194C and 200 in the instant case), he would still go scot free, without suffering the consequences of such monetary default in spite of specific provisions laying down these consequences.” 3 Shri Fareed Anwar Vs ITO,Ward 6(3),Jaipur 4. Now coming to another contention raised by the AR that the amendment brought-in in section

MAHAVEER OIL DISTRIBUTORS,SHAHPURA JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD BEHROR, BEHROR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). who directed the ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- and sustained the addition of Rs. 62,185/-. The relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) for the sustained addition reads

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 68 of the Act. AO converted limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny on 14.12.2017 and framed order on 28.12.2017. Contention of the Assessee: Assessee submitted that AO enquired on unsecured loans prior to 14.12.2017, whereas he got approval on 14.12.2017 and it is against the provision of the ACT. Held:That the assessing officer has exceeded his jurisdiction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

68,289/- on account of depreciation allowable @ 80% on civil construction and electric installation on the wind mills, which the ld. AO by avoiding it, raised ground before this Hon’ble ITAT. (2) That ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting following additions for which ld. AO, without appreciating the legality of issue, preferred appeal before this Hon’ble ITAT

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

194C of the act\nwerereceived as contract receipts for removal of solid waste and the same was\nconsidered as violative of provision of section 2(15) of the Act. The second part of\nthe notice was that the assessee has advanced a sum of Rs. 2,25,68

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

194C is Rs.1,00,000/- and u/s 1943 is Rs.30,000/- and no tax is liable to be deducted below the threshold limit and there may be many expenses which might have been grouped under professional/technical consultancy charges and TDS is not liable to be deducted thereon. The assessee also mentioned that merely debiting of any expense on any particular

WORLDWELFARE HEALTH FEDERATION,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

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

Bench: Rejecting The Application For Registration U/S 12Ab. No Show Cause Notice Before The Rejection Of The Application Was Issued To The Assessee. 3. That The Ld. Cit(Exemption) Has Not Given Adequate Time For Submitting Responses To Notices U/S 133(6). Notices Were Issued On 24/03/2023 (Friday) To Three Parties & Without Waiting For Their Responses, The Order Of Rejection Was Issued On 28/03/2023 (Tuesday) In A Hurried Manner. 4. Appellant Craves The Right To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend In Any Manner The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Hearing.”

68,655/- has been deducted as TDS u/s 194JB of the Income Tax Act by Sun Pharmaceutical Ltd. TDS u/s 194JB is deducted on fees provided for professional or technical services which means that the applicant has provided professional services to Sun Pharmaceutical Ltd. Moreover, assessee himself has shown receipts as sales and has also shown trade receivables

KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: or at the time of hearing of

68,42,866/- was also deducted u/s 194C of the Act by the concerned deductors. 4 Kiran Infra Engineers Ltd. vs. ACIT. Whereas on perusal of profit & loss account submitted by the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee has shown “sale of service contract receipts less by Rs. 1,22,46,750.32/- and assessee was asked to show cause

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

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