BANSAL CLASSES PVIVATE LTD.,KOTA vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, revenue’s ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

depreciation on PLD unit building on the basis of additional evidence admitted in violation of Rule 46A. (iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 5,52,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 7,94,000/- made by the AO u/s 40A(2)(b) out of salary paid; (iv) deleting the addition of Rs. 4,90,07,505/- made

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 8. We find that now this issue has been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in favor of revenue in its recent decision in bunch of appeals titled as Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022). In this decision

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)

7. As the issue in the present appeal is also identical to the issue in the case of Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd.,(supra), on identical findings the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. ACIT Vs. Sunila Sahu MA No.23/CTK/2022 (Arising

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)

7. As the issue in the present appeal is also identical to the issue in the case of Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd.,(supra), on identical findings the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. ACIT Vs. Sunila Sahu MA No.23/CTK/2022 (Arising

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)

7. As the issue in the present appeal is also identical to the issue in the case of Nirakar Security & Consultancy Services Pvt Ltd.,(supra), on identical findings the issue in this appeal is restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. ACIT Vs. Sunila Sahu MA No.23/CTK/2022 (Arising

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

7. order of the ld. CIT(A) and vehemently argued that the disallowance are evidently not paid in time the same is disallowable and for that he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. vs CIT Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022. We have considered the rival contention

SODHANI SWEET PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible in certain circumstances. Section 41 elaborates conditions which apply with respect to certain deductions which are otherwise allowed in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability etc. If we consider this scheme, Sections 40- 43B, are concerned with and enact different conditions

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

SHRI NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

7 Shri Neeraj Purohit vs JCIT , Range-4, Jaipur of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [ section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or] [sub-section (1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause (c) of sub- section (2) of section

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop

SHRI JITENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeals for the assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed and for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

B” JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 946 & 947/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 cuke Shri Jitendra Kumar Gupta The ITO, Vs. Prop

RAM NIWAS MODI CHARITABLE SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee are disposed off\nthereby allowing the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

b) of section 40A(2) provides six categoriesof assessee, along with the list of\npersons who could be associated with theassessee. In this clause, no reference is\nbeing made to an assessee, who isa society or trust and whose income is to be\nassessed as per sections 11, 12and 13. Because a similar mechanism has been\nprovided therein section13

ACIT, KOTA vs. SHIV AGREVO LTD., BARAN

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

40A (2)(b), the A.O. should have established that the payment to relatives is excessive compared to prevailing market rate. In this case it has not been done. The business results show vast upward movement, and considering the nature of the trade, the use of experience of the concerned relative cannot be denied. On a totality of facts, increase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (E), CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for Statistical purposes with no order as to cost

B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 359/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mahatma Gandhi Charitable Society cuke The DCIT (Exemptions) Vs. Circle – Jaipur for Education and Research Jaipur

M/S NATIONAL SANITATION,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(3) of the Act. It was also stated that 20% disallowance of expenses on account of car running and maintenance, telephone expenses, business promotion, depreciation on car etc. should be also restored. The Tribunal did not agree and has held that the assessee was in business of civil construction and disallowing expenditure of Rs.10.98 crores would give an abnormal

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.

7) in Form 10CCB alongwith return is not a mandatory provision but only a directory one and the same can be filed 23 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB

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.

7) in Form 10CCB alongwith return is not a mandatory provision but only a directory one and the same can be filed 23 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB

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.

7) in Form 10CCB alongwith return is not a mandatory provision but only a directory one and the same can be filed 23 ITA 1158 to 1162/JP/2019_ DCIT Vs M/s Ksheer Sagar Developers P Ltd. any time before completion of assessment. The provision is analogous to same provision contained in Section 80HHA, 80HHC, 80IB