ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

40A(3) can be made by making disallowance over and above ad hoc addition. 36 DTR 220 Teja Constructions Vs. Asstt. CIT (Hyd. ‘A’) Disallowance under s. 40(a)(ia) – Rejection of books vis-à-vis amount paid without TDS – Once estimation of income is made, further disallowance under section

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

TDS and given that, the assessee’s contention that there are no written/verbal contracts has been rightly rejected by the AO and provisions of section 40(a)(ia) has been rightly invoked. Regarding cash payment and violation of section 40A(3

MORANI FOURWHEELS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground taken by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act. The AO further observed that the assessee is under contract with M/s Bikaner Detective Security Service and has deducted TDS

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

40A(3). 18 ITA 283/JP/2020_ M/s Guru Kripa Career Institute P Ltd. Vs PCIT iv) Alleged non-verification of claim of depreciation on computer and furniture and vehicle running expenses, advertisement expenses v) Abnormal increase in Cash in hand post survey vi) Outstanding liabilities in sundry creditors for advertisement and rent expenses and staff payable vii) Alleged non-verification

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

TDS under law, such (ii) If deduction under section 40A(3) of the Act is not allowed, the same would

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

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

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

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

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

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

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

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

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)

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS the section 40A(ia) cannot be invoked. This view is also taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M.C. Sharma Associates & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1028/JP/11. Thus by respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Court and ITAT, the disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- made is hereby deleted. Thus the assessee

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

TDS the section 40A(ia) cannot be invoked. This view is also taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of M.C. Sharma Associates & Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1028/JP/11. Thus by respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Court and ITAT, the disallowance of Rs. 90,000/- made is hereby deleted. Thus the assessee

DYNAMIC ENGINEERS INFRATEC PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA, CIRCLE-2 KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

40A(3) are invoked irrespective of an expenditure otherwise not disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, this explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted when the AO has specifically raised the query about the supporting evidence in respect of various claims made by the assessee. The second explanation of the assessee is that the various expenditures were

DYNAMIC ENGINEERS INFRATEC PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, CIRCLE-1 KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

40A(3) are invoked irrespective of an expenditure otherwise not disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, this explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted when the AO has specifically raised the query about the supporting evidence in respect of various claims made by the assessee. The second explanation of the assessee is that the various expenditures were

DYNAMIC ENGINEERS INFRATEC PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1 KOTA, CIRCLE-1 KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Cit (A). 2. That The Appellant Craves To Add, Delete, Alter & Amend Or Modify Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Either Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

40A(3) are invoked irrespective of an expenditure otherwise not disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. Therefore, this explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted when the AO has specifically raised the query about the supporting evidence in respect of various claims made by the assessee. The second explanation of the assessee is that the various expenditures were

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.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses

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.

40A(3) and its source is verifiable therefrom and in this case expenditure is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of cash payment is clearly depicted in books of accounts being out of withdrawal of cash from Bank A/c(s) of assessee company. Since, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted this addition on the ground that the expenses