INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

disallowed exemption claimed u/s 10 of the Act\non the ground:\n\"the assessee having failed to furnish returns of income in each\n assessment year or before the due date specified under sub-\nsection (1) of Section 139 of the Act”\nFor the same reason, Learned CIT(A) has upheld the assessment\norders.\nContentions

RAJASTHAN STATE TEXT BOOK BOARD,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

disallowed by the Assessing Officer is confirmed and the Assessing Officer rightly completed assessment by treating the appellant as AOP and the surplus of Rs. 40,00,21,090/- is rightly taxed by the Assessing officer. These grounds are not allowed.” Therefore, as far as the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee is not existing solely

SHARMA MODERN PUBLIC SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI,JAIPUR vs. ITO (EXEMPTION), ALWAR

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

Bench: The Ld. Cit (A)

30,55,270/- “ It is manifest from the finding of the AO that while discussing the issue, the AO made 10% disallowance which comes to Rs. 3,33,242/- whereas in the computation of income, the AO has taken the amount of Rs. 7,00,010/- and there is no discussion about the said amount. Accordingly, it appears that this

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

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

30 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. AY 2011-12 The AO had disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 2578.65 lakhs under section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 14A and calculated a disallowance of only Rs. 36.92 lakhs. The Tribunal while principally approving the finding of the CIT(A), remanded

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

30 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. AY 2011-12 The AO had disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 2578.65 lakhs under section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 14A and calculated a disallowance of only Rs. 36.92 lakhs. The Tribunal while principally approving the finding of the CIT(A), remanded

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

30 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. AY 2011-12 The AO had disallowed proportionate interest of Rs. 2578.65 lakhs under section 36(1)(iii). The CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 14A and calculated a disallowance of only Rs. 36.92 lakhs. The Tribunal while principally approving the finding of the CIT(A), remanded

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed the claim u/s 80IB for the following two reasons: a) The Project claimed to have been completed has not yet been completed, as the construction expenses continue to appear in the audited financial statements [AO page 2 para (ii)(a)]. b) The assessee company violated the provisions of section 80IB (10) (e) & (f) [AO page 3 para

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

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

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

disallowances deserve deletion on this submission alone. 10.1 The assessee has some other reason to kept cash in hand. The assessee wants to purchase the land for further extension of educational institution and for that it entered into an agreement on dt. 11.04.2011 for purchase the land for Rs.46,80,000/- for which the assessee needs to kept cash

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)

30-3-2007 before expiry of the assessment year in question as per extended time provided under section 139(4). The deductions claimed under section 80IB were disallowed relying upon section 80AC on the ground that return of income had not been filed within the time limit specified under section 139(1). The issue before the Delhi High Court pertained

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section