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

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

1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return." (vi) Thus, it is very clear that any tax by whatever name called is covered

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

1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return." (vi) Thus, it is very clear that any tax by whatever name called is covered

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

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

1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return." (vi) Thus, it is very clear that any tax by whatever name called is covered

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. However, the assessee has itself disallowed only Rs 42,14,588/- in its computation. Thus the remaining amount Rs 2,59,71,570/- should have been disallowed by the AO. (ii) It is seen that in clause 34(a) of the audit report form

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

36,980/- made by\nthe Id. AO u/s 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 57(iv) r.w.s 145B(1) of the Act.\n2. Basic and Undisputed Facts:\nThe assessee made a detailed submission before the AO vide its letter\ndt (PB 2-6) hence for better position the content thereof being\nreproduced here as under. It was submitted before the AO that

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

ARUN BHARDWAJ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36,329/- by observing at para 3 & 4 of his assessment order dated 30-11- 2017 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. However, in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of non-appearance and not controvering the order of the AO. The moot question raised

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

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

36 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. by the assessee in respect of the trading addition in grounds No. 4 and 5 stand allowed. 12. Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is regarding disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has made payments of transportation to various contractors without deduction

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

36 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. by the assessee in respect of the trading addition in grounds No. 4 and 5 stand allowed. 12. Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is regarding disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has made payments of transportation to various contractors without deduction

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

36 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. by the assessee in respect of the trading addition in grounds No. 4 and 5 stand allowed. 12. Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is regarding disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has made payments of transportation to various contractors without deduction

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

36 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. by the assessee in respect of the trading addition in grounds No. 4 and 5 stand allowed. 12. Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is regarding disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has made payments of transportation to various contractors without deduction

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

TDS) JP, (2017) 87 Taxmann.com 184 Rajasthan; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) and argued that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the assessee should be preferred. Reliance is also placed on the judgments in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. K.Y. Pilliah& Sons, (1967) 63 ITR 411 (SC), Deputy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. BHARAT SPUN PIPE AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

viii) The argument of the Revenue in paragraph 5.1 of the Office Memorandum\nthat the Section and Scheme have left it to the administration to device and modify\nprocedures with time while remaining confined to the principles laid down in the\nsaid Section and Scheme, is without appreciating that one of the main principles\nlaid down in the Scheme

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)

viii) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. Brigade Enterprises Ltd[2021] 124 taxmann.com 237 (copy at PB page 190-196) it was held that Where Assessing Officer madedisallowanceofassessee'sclaimundersection14A, read with rule 8D(2)(ii) on ground that overdraft facility was directly used by assessee for making tax exempt investments but Commissioner

SHAMBHU DAYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD -2(2), KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

viii. It was the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) Decision of CIT(A) is self explanatory. No (refer para 8.3.1 of the CIT(A) order0 that counter submission is required details of cash withdrawal submitted by the appellant are contra entries. In this regard, please note that as per accounting principle any transaction which affect cash account and bank

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

viii) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,52,06,275/- made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds on account of investment in mutual funds units; ix) curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 36,92,000/- as against that of Rs. 25,78,65,553/- made by the A.O. since the decision