DILIP SINGH YADAV,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

disallowance of exemption claimed under section 10(10AA) which was in excess Rs 300000.00. Same was replied by assessee in response column to notice as well as by e mail. The copy of said notice is enclosed as Page No’s 2-4 of paper book and the replies thereto are enclosed as page No’s 5-12 of paper

STATE BANK OF INDIA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, we confirm the findings of the ld CIT(A) and the appeal of

disallow exemption in LTC Rules in case of foreign travel the same should have been specifically mentioned, but that is not so, nowhere in the entire section any such proviso/point appears. Also, it would be wrong to say that they have bent the interpretation intentionally against the intent and spirit of these provisions as: 1) The two basic conditions

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance 320,000,000 10

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

27,700/- as Business Promotion expenses. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs. 8,500/- for want of vouchers. 24 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs. 8,500/- which

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

27,700/- as Business Promotion expenses. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs. 8,500/- for want of vouchers. 24 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs. 8,500/- which

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

27,700/- as Business Promotion expenses. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs. 8,500/- for want of vouchers. 24 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The AO has made the disallowance of Rs. 8,500/- which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA vs. BHIM SINGH, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A) By The Assessee Which Were Allowed By The Ld. Cit (A) Are To Be Considered In This Appeal

disallowances made by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) were deleted by the ld. CIT (A) as under :- 3 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 4 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 5 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. 6 Shri Bhim Singh, Kota. Thus it is clear that the ld. CIT (A) has followed the decision of this Tribunal in assessee

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

10) to the assessee. The only contention is that since the original return of income was filed by the asessee beyond the period prescribed in section 139(1), therefore, the embargo placed by section 80AC on the entitlement of the assessee to the deduction claimed under section 80IB of the Act comes into play. Section 139 (4) allows "any person

TIRUPATI COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), JAIPUR

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

section 10(23C) from back date are also not according to the law and facts of the case and at the worst after the year of notice it can be done if any. In the case of CIT V/s Manav Vikas Avam Sewa Sansthan 336 ITR 250 (All) it has been held that “9. We have heard the learned counsel

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)

27,006/- and expenditure amounting to 42,22,857/- in relation to this is disallowed The finding of the ld. CIT (A) is not rebutted by revenue by placing any contrary materials. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld. The ground raised by the Revenue

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

27,65,853/- to Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) as testing fee on which TDS was required to be made under section 194C of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the said payment. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same was disallowed. The assessee challenged

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

27,060/-. The assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 30/3/2015 at a total income of Rs. 19,15,23,899/-. The Assessing Officer made various disallowances while passing the assessment order. Identical disallowances ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 3 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. were also

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

27,060/-. The assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 30/3/2015 at a total income of Rs. 19,15,23,899/-. The Assessing Officer made various disallowances while passing the assessment order. Identical disallowances ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 3 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. were also

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

27,060/-. The assessment was completed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) by the Assessing Officer on 30/3/2015 at a total income of Rs. 19,15,23,899/-. The Assessing Officer made various disallowances while passing the assessment order. Identical disallowances ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 3 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. were also