ACIT, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD., KOTA

iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.61,71,580/- made by the AO on a/c of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 43B by admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. 2. Firstly, we will take up appeal

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year forwhich set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory\r\nlimit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or\r\nratio or fraction\r\n7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of\r\ndeduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. VIPUL BANKA, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. TRILOK DEWAN, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SARITA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. PRIYA DEWAN, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. USHA BANKA, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. ANIMESH AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n3. Since the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SNEHLATA AGARWAL, SIKAR

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

26-5-1993. The amounts paid represented principal sum of compensation of\nRs.41,96,496 and interest in the sum of Rs.76,84,829 up to 18-5-1992. Before\nmaking the above payments, tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.\n8,60,701.\n\n3.\nSince the lands acquired were agricultural lands and were acquired prior to 1

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

iii) of I.T. Act, 1961 and so was not admissible. The\nassessee firm filed its explanation to object notice u/s 154 and claimed that said\nunabsorbed depreciation is allowable to it as per law and cited various judicial\nprecedents on the issue in its favour. The Ld. A.O. without appreciating the legal\nposition as pronounced in various judicial precedents held