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

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 MITTAL PHARMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

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

36(1)(iii) on account of interest free advance given to M/s Ravi Associates. 4. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 5. The appropriate cost be awarded to the assessee.” 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of trading of medicines on wholesale basis. The assessee filed its return

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

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

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

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

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

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

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

TDS could not be discharged by the assessee, therefore, it further establishes the violation of provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Accordingly, as per provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) r.w.s. 194A of the Act, the 30% of interest expenditure amount to Rs. 27,132/- (30% of 90,441/-) was hereby disallowed 5 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried