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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

108/- made on account of depreciation disallowed on catalyst; v) Curtailing disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 24,90,000/- as against that of Rs. 35,92,45,372/-, made by AO since the decision of Ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court

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)

108-115]: Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. ITAT relying on decision of Delhi High Court in PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development Company Ltd., wherein it has been held that no disallowance under Section

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed u/s 14A /\nRule 8 D\nThus in view of above, it is evidently clear that the investment made in\nthe share capital of various companies was with a sole motive of\nobtaining controlling interest in them, earing of any dividend or capital\ngain as a motive was never in sight, and therefore such strategic\ninvestment were outside the scope

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)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

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)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

108 ITR 345 (SC) 5. Value Momentum Software Services Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 2197/HYD/2017 dated 19.05.2021. 6. Vedvan Consultants Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1312/Del/2020 dated 26.08.2021, has held that Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to Section 43B are retrospective. 9. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the amendment brought

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)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee's company. 3.3 The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) who also rejected the claim relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna. The applicability of the said decision to the facts of the present case is disputed

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

108 (Del) against the Revenue. Consequeritly, no question of law arises." Following above decision, I direct the LJAO to calculate disallowance following above directions of Hon'ble HC 'that only those investments are to be considered for computing average value of investment which yielded exempt income during the year. Incase calculated amount as per above direction is less than

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

108 DTR 109 (Raj) • CIT vs Mehru Electricals & Mechanical Engineers Pvt. Ltd (2016) 141 DTR 342 (Raj) • ACIT vs. M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd. (ITA No.377/JP/12 order dt. 03.04.2018 (Jaipur) (Trib) In view of above, disallowance of depreciation of Rs.46,630/- confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is uncalled for and same be directed to be deleted. 13. Per contra

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

disallowed in view of the provisions of section 36(1) (iii) of the Act as also in view of the judgments of Hon'ble Superme Court in the case of S.A. Builders and that of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court of in the case of Abhisekh Industries. 6. Feeling dissatisfied the finding so recorded in the assessment order

MS SURBHI AGRAWAL ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance made. 4. The assessee craves its right to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.” 2. The assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 143(3) of the IT Act on 26.12.2016 at the total income of Rs. 59,33,000/- as against the returned income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowance was to be deleted 34 ITA169/JP/2022 DCIT, CENTRALL CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR VS SHRI VIGYAN LODHA - Tribunal dismissed revenue's appeal - High Court affirmed judgments of Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal being concurrent factual findings - Whether no substantial question of law arose from impugned order of Tribunal - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee] 6.3 Sunita Dhadda, order dated

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

108 (Bom), law on this aspect\nwas discussed in the following manner (page 113): “ . . . From a rending\nof sub-section (1) of section 263, it is clear that the power of suomotu\nrevision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of\nthe records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any\norder passed therein

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

section 263 of the Act, the twin condition is required to be satisfied which not fulfilled in this case. On the issue observed by the ld. PCIT the sufficient enquiry has already been done by the assessing officer and as regards the debatable issue the ld. AO has taken a plausible view of the matter and for that matter

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

108 ITD 115(Agra)it has\nbeen held that Further, AO had referred to wrong bank account number in the\nreasons recorded by him—Sec. 292B cannot take care of any mistake in\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\nreasons recorded

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

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

108 ITD 115(Agra)it has\nbeen held that Further, AO had referred to wrong bank account number in the\nreasons recorded by him—Sec. 292B cannot take care of any mistake in\nrecording the reasons because that section refers to \"return of income,\nassessment, notice, summons or other proceedings\"—It does not refer to the\nreasons recorded

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