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

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

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

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

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

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

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

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

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

36(1)(viia) could not be said to have been made in rectification of an error apparent in assessment order—Court had no reason to interfere with impugned order and, therefore, did not find that any substantial question of law was involved in this case—Application and appeal dismissed (vi) In the case of Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

Section 263 of the Act wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT. has failed to appreciate that the Assessment Order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thus, order passed u/s 263 of the Act is perverse, arbitrary

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

viia) read with Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (e) As per CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008, it has been clearly laid down that provision of standard asset is a contingent liability and a contingent liability cannot constitute deductible expenditure for the propose of Income Tax Act (f) Further, perusal of assessment records reveals that you have claimed Rs.137.05

ITO, KOTA vs. KOTA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

36(1)(viia) of the Act however the same will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income attracting the provisions of 3 ITO vs. Kota Sahkari Bhoomi Vikas bank Ltd., Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by following various decisions of this Tribunal

MILLENIUM BUILDHOME PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. ITO(TDS), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands partly allowed with no 6

36,566/- and further erred in charging interest thereon of Rs. 7,53,988/- u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer treating the assessee as an assessee in default