BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A: ADDITION MADE WITHOUT AFFORDING ANYOPPORTUNITY AS MANDATED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(a). 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. The adjustment made while processing the return of income is illegal because adjustment

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

va) to deposit the amounts retained by it or deducted by it from the employee's income, unless the condition that it is deposited on or before the due date, is correct and justified. The non-obstante clause has to be understood in the context of the entire provision of Section 43B which is to ensure timely payment before

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

va) of Rs. 1,58,85,223/- while computing Total Income. Resultantly, ground no 1 as raised by the appellant is therefore allowed. 13. Ground no 2 relates to disallowance of Health and Education cess while computing Book Profit u/s 115JB. The brief facts related to the issue is that the ld. AO disallowed a sum of Rs. 8.48 Crores

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

23. Arguments heard. Files perused. 25. As noticed above, the assessee is a public Limited company, having its registered office at Gadepan District Kota and its corporation office of New Delhi and Regional Marketing offices in different states in addition to o10 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota other division in the States

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

23. Arguments heard. Files perused. 25. As noticed above, the assessee is a public Limited company, having its registered office at Gadepan District Kota and its corporation office of New Delhi and Regional Marketing offices in different states in addition to o10 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota other division in the States

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

23. Arguments heard. Files perused. 25. As noticed above, the assessee is a public Limited company, having its registered office at Gadepan District Kota and its corporation office of New Delhi and Regional Marketing offices in different states in addition to o10 ITA No. 1090, 1097 TO 1099 & 1091/JPR/2024 Chambal Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd., Kota other division in the States

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

section with effect the A.Y. 2009-10 and onwards. The learned assessing officer disallowed the benefit of exemption to the appellant in the assessment order on the ground that the appellant has violated the investment norms as provided under the four for the trust. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant is having investment in equity shares

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)

Va Path Nirman (Bohra) & Co (No. 1) 258 ITR 431 has held that the past history of the assessee is best guiding factor. 2.4 In point no (iii) of para3at page 2 of order passed u/s 263 the ld PCIT assumed wrong facts by mentioning that the assessee has admitted that its case is covered by the provisions of section14A

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

23 of order) he relied upon the decision in the case\nof RRPR Holding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com537 (Del.\nITAT) which is however, based on different facts which are not\navailable in the present case and therefore, the same is completely\ndistinguishable.\n8. Expense claimed u/s 36 (1) (iii) only: The appellant never made a\nclaim

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the Income-tax under section 28 of the Act. 20. In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, this Court held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

va) of the Act. The learned AO has also not allowed the benefit of registration u/s 12AA of the Income Tax Act and not granted the exemption u/s 11 & 12 of the Income Tax Act 1961. Copy of order is placed on paper book page no. 1 to 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer the assessee

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

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

gain any benefit because of the\ndelayed finding and their conduct was not contumacious.\n3. In support, affidavits of Shri Sandeep Kumar Saboo and Shri Sushil\nMittal are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 and Annexure-\n2.\n4. Supporting Case Laws: It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition

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

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

gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation...........’’ We found from the facts of the petition that the contentions raised in the petition was not malafide and the circumstances stated in the petition is not controverted by the revenue. In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

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

gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation...........’’ We found from the facts of the petition that the contentions raised in the petition was not malafide and the circumstances stated in the petition is not controverted by the revenue. In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

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

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

gain time, then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation...........’’ We found from the facts of the petition that the contentions raised in the petition was not malafide and the circumstances stated in the petition is not controverted by the revenue. In view of the above facts, circumstances of the case and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme

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

gains returned by the assessee were not a necessary concomitant of an order made under sections 145(1) or 145(2). Therefore, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal deleting the entire additions to the trading results after holding that the proviso to section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering

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

gains returned by the assessee were not a necessary concomitant of an order made under sections 145(1) or 145(2). Therefore, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal deleting the entire additions to the trading results after holding that the proviso to section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering

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

gains returned by the assessee were not a necessary concomitant of an order made under sections 145(1) or 145(2). Therefore, there was no error in the order of the Tribunal deleting the entire additions to the trading results after holding that the proviso to section 145(1) was applicable.” ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 33 Zuberi Engineering