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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot

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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot

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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot

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

vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section 1940(7) of the ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 40 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. Act and 1940(6) and 1940(7) are interlinked. It was also observed by the AO that it cannot

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

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

6) of section 155\nshall apply;\n(v) where such debt or part of debt relates to advances made by an assessee to which\nclause (viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the\nassessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the\nprovision

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

disallowance relating to salary, foreign travel and treating contribution to Jaipur National University as application of income. The assessee society is in appeal against the order of ld CIT(A) for not treating the allowance of depreciation as application of income. 4. The first question that arises in the present appeal is the entitlement of the assessee society to exemption

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed due to contravention of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act r/w section 195 of the Act. On perusal of the reply filed by the assessee, the agency agreement dated 11.02.2012 entered into between the assessee and M/s Trans Coral Shipping and copy of bills issued by M/s Trans Coral Shipping FZE, the AO observed that the sales promotion

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)

6) of the Act seeking extension of time for filing of return. The ground forwarded for late filing of the return was delay in audit. The Court considered the case for condonation of delay as under :- "9. The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing

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. The said proviso reads as under: "Provided also that where the fund or institution referred to in sub-clause (iv) or trust or institution referred to in sub-clause (v) is notified by the Central Government 1 [or is approved by the prescribed authority, as the case may be,] or any university or other educational institution referred

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

disallowing the claim made by the Appellant and the addition of Rs\n4,43,36,980- is hereby deleted. These grounds are allowed.\nGround No. 5 is general in nature.\nIn the result, the appeal is allowed.\"\n5. Feeling dissatisfied with the above finding so recorded in the\norder of the Id. CIT(A) the revenue has preferred the present

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

vii. It is further submitted that provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following 19 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance: Clause 21(b)-Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),  Clause

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory