DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9) of Section 108 therefore, once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9) of Section 108 therefore, once the section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the AO was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

9. Regarding estimation of profits pursuant to the rejection of the books of accounts, the AO has segregated the turnover relating to work directly executed by the assessee and the work executed through the sub-contractor. In respect of directly executed work, the AO has applied the net profit rate of 12.5% subject to interest and depreciation following the ratio

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.”

40A(3) of the Act. 9. For the assessment year 2012-13, ground no. 1 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment. The ld. AR as well as ld. DR has reiterated their contentions as advance on this issue for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, the ld. AR has pointed out that during the scrutiny assessment

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.”

40A(3) of the Act. 9. For the assessment year 2012-13, ground no. 1 is regarding validity of reopening of assessment. The ld. AR as well as ld. DR has reiterated their contentions as advance on this issue for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, the ld. AR has pointed out that during the scrutiny assessment

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

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

depreciation have been claimed had already been claimed as application of income by the assessee in earlier years.s 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition of Rs. 89,37,519/- u/s 40A(3) without verifying the fact that such expenditure had been claimed by the assessee

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 40A(3) on account of prize distribution expenses on 04.10.2014 amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- and Rs.1,53,000/- and celebration & festival expenses on 21.10.2014 amounting to Rs.37,500/- and 34,000/- have been allowed. 6. Depreciation on furniture and computers was allowed as claimed in the return of income without verification. 7. Vehicle running expenses allowed as claimed

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

40A(9) etc. However, in the case of the assessee, the auditor has not reported any amount of disallowance. 8. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in favour of the assesssee: S.No. Name of case Findings 1 Paris Elysees India Private Limited, Jaipur v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 7, Jaipur (ITAT Jaipur) ITA No. 357/JPR/2022 Case

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

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

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

depreciation as prescribed for intangible assets under section 32 of the Act. The ground of the assessee’s appeal is disposed off accordingly. Regarding the 2nd ground of appeal wherein assessee has 9. challenged the sustenance of addition made by the AO on account of caution money of Rs. 5 lakh. The Revenue is also in cross appeal in ground

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

40A(9) may not be applicable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 281 ITR 408 had an occasion to consider the allowability of expenditure relating to the donation of bus to school. In that case, the AO was of the view that the school is not owned

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

40A(9) may not be applicable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 281 ITR 408 had an occasion to consider the allowability of expenditure relating to the donation of bus to school. In that case, the AO was of the view that the school is not owned

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

40A(9) may not be applicable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 281 ITR 408 had an occasion to consider the allowability of expenditure relating to the donation of bus to school. In that case, the AO was of the view that the school is not owned

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

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

40A(9) may not be applicable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 281 ITR 408 had an occasion to consider the allowability of expenditure relating to the donation of bus to school. In that case, the AO was of the view that

JCIT, RANG-2, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED, KOTA

In the result, respective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

40A(9) may not be applicable. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the M/s Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. ACIT case of CIT Vs. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd., 281 ITR 408 had an occasion to consider the allowability of expenditure relating to the donation of bus to school. In that case, the AO was of the view that

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation, being revenue neutral over the years and similarly argument of not imposing penalty on unpaid liability u/s 43B on the plea that in the subsequent year same would be allowed on payment basis, is of no avail. The Hon’ble ITAT has further held that whether conditions stipulated u/s 271(1)(c) are satisfied

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) of the Act and those payments for purchase are duly recorded in regular books of accounts which is verifiable therefrom. The soft copy of books of accounts were also available before A.O. in assessment proceedings and copy of books of account showing the said entries were filled in paper book in appeal proceedings which was also forwarded