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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

34 taxmann.com 285/358 ITR 373\n(Karnataka)Section 10(23C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Charitable/religious\npurpose (Society running institutions for educational purpose) - Assessment\nyear 2005-06 - Whether where assessee- society runs several educational\ninstitutions, in terms of section 10(23C)(iii)(ad), income from each educational\ninstitution if they are not receiving any aid from government wholly

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Section 34 which is only the interest received for delay\nin making the payment after the compensation amount is\ndetermined. Thus, the interest u/s 28 is a part of the value of the\nland.\n6. The it. CIT (A) held that the interest received u/s 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 is not exempt under

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

34 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. by the assessee on borrowed funds which was claimed by the assesse under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and observed that had the assessee not utilised the funds in making investments in subsidiaries, the same funds would have been employed for its business purpose and interest paid

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

34 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. by the assessee on borrowed funds which was claimed by the assesse under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and observed that had the assessee not utilised the funds in making investments in subsidiaries, the same funds would have been employed for its business purpose and interest paid

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

34 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. by the assessee on borrowed funds which was claimed by the assesse under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and observed that had the assessee not utilised the funds in making investments in subsidiaries, the same funds would have been employed for its business purpose and interest paid

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

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

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened by ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

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

10) When on the basis of the record it is not disputed that the requirements of further proviso were fulfilled, the assessee was not required to make any deduction at source on the payments made to the sub-contractors. If that be our conclusion, application of section 40(a)(ia) would not arise since, as already noticed, section

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

34,200 4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 80,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 2,60,038/- 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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

34,200 4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 80,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 2,60,038/- 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

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

34,200 4. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adhoc disallowance of Rs. 80,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 2,60,038/- 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

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

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature