GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

section 36(1)(iii). The view which has been taken by the division Bench in Phaltan Sugar Works (supra) has expressly now been overruled by the Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders Ltd. ( supra). [Para 9]” 4. Not all the Loans are given in current year: 4.1 As mentioned earlier the assessee made investments in these ongoing concerns

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

36(1)(viia)(d) of the Act. 4. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.PCIT, Jaipur-1 has grossly erred in directing the AO for fresh assessment for computation of book profit u/s 115JB of the Act even when it is admitted by the ld. PCIT itself that the computation done

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

iii) was held to be\njustified\n1.7. In view of the above, Id. PCIT was not correct in assuming jurisdiction\nunder Section 263 in relation to Issue No. 2.\n2. Interest of Rs. 55,810 on delayed payment of TDS not eligible for deduction\nunder Section 36(1

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

section 36 (i)(iii). The assessee firm did not borrow any fresh money during the year and even have no opening borrowed money. Bank overdraft account is not borrowed money, because overdraft account is against the assessee own bank FDRs. It means bank overdraft is assesee own money taken out of FDR account temporarily. As and when the assessee needed

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

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

TDS was not an allowable expenditure u/s\n36(1)(iii) of the Act.\n(iii) Since no such addition on account of disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act had been made by the AO, while completing the assessment on\n15/04/2021, the income has been found to be under computed/assessed\nby this amount of Rs.21,732/-, which was erroneous

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

36,73,140 Nil Nil CSR expenses 6,41,42,000 6,41,42,000 1,41,42,000 Deduction u/s 80IA 15,33,95,189 Nil Nil Disallowance u/s 14A 71,75,575 71,75,575 71,75,575 Service Tax Receivable 1,93,00,000 1,93,00,000 Set aside Excess provision

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

36(1)(iii), 37(1) or 57(iii) of the Act. As submitted by the assessee that ld.AO has simply compared loans taken and loans given and has completely ignored other current/ fixed assets generated in the course of business and it appears that disallowance has been made as per section 57(iii), though provisions of section 57(iii) have

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

iii) subject to compliance with the provisions of Section 194C(6), immunity from TDS under sec. 194C(1) in relation to payments to transporters, applies transporter and non-transporter contractees alike; (iv) under Sec. 194C(6), as it stood prior to the amendment in 2015, in order to get immunity from the obligation of TDS, filing

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

36,73,140 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 6,41,42,000 | 6,41,42,000 | 1,41,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 15,33,95,189 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575\n| Service Tax Receivable | 1,93,00,000 | 1,93,00,000 | Set aside\n| Excess provision

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

iii) CIT, Chennai Vs. Faizan Shoes (p) Ltd (2014) 48 taxmann.com 48(Madras) (f) The Honorable Apex court in the case of GE India Technology Cen. P Ltd v. CIT(2010) 327 ITR 456(SC) held as under:  Section 195 of the Income tax Act, 1961- deduction of tax at source payment to non resident  Whether the moment a remittance

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

TDS u/s. 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. 2,25,68,932/- to the\nperson covered

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

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)

iii) any information received under an agreement referred to in Section 90 or Section 904 of the Act or (iv) any information made available to the Assessing Officer under the scheme notified under Section 135A; or (v) any information which requires action in consequence of the order of a Tribunal or a Court. On the contrary, Explanation 2 which deals

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

iii) of sub-section (3) of section 194A of\nthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the\nCentral Government hereby notify with effect\nfrom the 19th July, 1969 the following banks\nfor the purposes of the said sub-clause :— 1.\n3. Allahabad Bank, 14, India\nExchange Place, Calcutta-1. 4. ************ 5.\n************** 6. Union Bank of India, 66/80,\nApollo

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS Payable Rs. 36,295/- 5. VAT Payable Rs. 1,30,40,450/- Rs. 1,33,14,566/- In the assessee's case for the AY 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Jaipur vide his order dated 28.11.16 has confirmed the addition of 61,86,770/- on the identical issue of non-payment of statutory liabilities as per provisions

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS Payable Rs. 36,295/- 5. VAT Payable Rs. 1,30,40,450/- Rs. 1,33,14,566/- In the assessee's case for the AY 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Jaipur vide his order dated 28.11.16 has confirmed the addition of 61,86,770/- on the identical issue of non-payment of statutory liabilities as per provisions

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

TDS Payable Rs. 36,295/- 5. VAT Payable Rs. 1,30,40,450/- Rs. 1,33,14,566/- In the assessee's case for the AY 2012-13, the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Jaipur vide his order dated 28.11.16 has confirmed the addition of 61,86,770/- on the identical issue of non-payment of statutory liabilities as per provisions