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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

31]\nReliance is also placed on various SC\ndecisions on this issue mentioned in\npara 32 of this order.\n2\nVinod Malik V ADIT (\nITAT Delhi)\n[ITA no.\n1635/Del/2021\n Assessment Year\n2019-20 dated\n25.11.2022\n5-6\nThis is on the issue of disallowance of\nESIC/EPF amount u/s 143(1)(a). Hon'ble\nbench has followed the decision

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

depreciation etc—Tribunal after\r\ntaking note of factual position, more particularly, that addition which was made\r\nin reassessment proceedings having been deleted by CIT(A) reassessment on\r\nheads which were not part of reasons recorded for reopening assessment is not\r\nsustainable-Held, in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Versus Income-Tax\r\nOfficer

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

31-10-2018\ndeclaring an income of Rs. NIL. The case of the assessee was taken up for\n\"Limited Scrutiny\" u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 on the basis of\nComputer Assisted Selection for Scrutiny (CASS) and statutory notice u/s 143(2)\nof the Act dated 22-09-2019 was issued through ITBA and duly served

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

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

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

31-3-1956, under the Act before it was amended in 1956. This Court in the\ncase of S.S. Gadgil (supra) accepted the contention of the assessee and held as\nunder :\n\n\"... The Legislature has given to section 18 of the Finance Act, 1956, only a\nlimited retrospective operation, i.e., up to April 1, 1956 only. That provision must

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

31. Section 43B falls in Part-V of the IT Act. What is apparent is that the scheme of the Act is such that Sections 28 to 38 deal with different kinds of deductions, whereas Sections 40 to 43B spell out special provisions, laying out the mechanism for assessments and expressly prescribing conditions for disallowances. In terms of this scheme

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

depreciation). Each of these deductions, has its contours, depending upon the expressions used, and the conditions that are to be met. It is therefore necessary to bear in mind that specific enumeration of deductions, dependent upon fulfillment of particular conditions, would qualify as allowable deductions: failure by the assessee to comply with those conditions, would render the claim vulnerable