AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

112/-. Thus, shareholder fund is sufficient to make this much investment. The ld AO himself has not made any addition on account of interest cost. 3.1.3.2: - No further expenses, over & above to whatever already disallowed by the assessee, were incurred in relation to investment activities and assessee was not required to incur any other expenses 1. Sec. 14A talks

AJEET SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

112 ITD 57 The relevant extract of the order is provided below for ease of reference: "55.1 From the combined reading of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), the position emerges that any contribution made by the employees to any Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund, Employees' State Insurance Fund or any other fund for the welfare of such employees

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 36(1)(va) jof the Act of Rs. 3,97,112 and Rs. 1,73,243 on account of late deposit of employees contribution of PF and ESI respectively without appreciating the fact that the same was deposited before due date of filing of return and by not following the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan that

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 36(1)(va) jof the Act of Rs. 3,97,112 and Rs. 1,73,243 on account of late deposit of employees contribution of PF and ESI respectively without appreciating the fact that the same was deposited before due date of filing of return and by not following the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan that

DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

section 36(1)(va) jof the Act of Rs. 3,97,112 and Rs. 1,73,243 on account of late deposit of employees contribution of PF and ESI respectively without appreciating the fact that the same was deposited before due date of filing of return and by not following the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan that

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, we are of the view the ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act and in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, accordingly we hold that the ld. PCIT is not justified in directing

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40A(3), 269SS & 269T. Your honour Apex Court in case of Shreelekha Benerjee v. CIT 49 ITR 112 (SC) held that before the department rejects such evidence, it 12 M/s Morani Cars Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-06, Jaipur must either show an inherent weakness in the explanation or rebut it by putting to the assessee some information

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A), M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. assessee has preferred present appeal, whereas department has preferred appeal in respect of relief allowed by ld.CIT(A). 10. The AO assessed the finding that theassessee is indulged in bogus purchasing from M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A), M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. assessee has preferred present appeal, whereas department has preferred appeal in respect of relief allowed by ld.CIT(A). 10. The AO assessed the finding that theassessee is indulged in bogus purchasing from M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises

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

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

section 115JB, Explanation-1(c) are\nnot applicable in the case of the assessee company and thus the provision\nmade towards the surface renewal coat being ascertained liability deserves to\nbe allowed as claimed.\n\nIt is further submitted that it cannot be said that it is a simple provision made\nbut rather it is an expenditure which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

disallowed the same while determining\nthe income under the regular provisions holding that the basis of\nestimation of such cost of overlay expenses is not done on a scientific\nbasis and is thus in a nature of contingent liability. On appeal, the ld\nCIT(A) has returned a finding that expenditure related to keeping the\nroughness of the highway

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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.AO taken a plausible view on allowability of the same which is legally allowed as it is usual that interest free funds would

M/S S B B J,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) by Rs. 1,25,99,060/- (7.5% of 2.87,37,353 + 2,57,47,000 + 11,35,03,112). 7. Through written submission and arguments it was stated that the AO is misreading section

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) by Rs. 1,25,99,060/- (7.5% of 2.87,37,353 + 2,57,47,000 + 11,35,03,112). 7. Through written submission and arguments it was stated that the AO is misreading section

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance or any other adverse action. Thus, none of the conditions of clause (a) & (b) of Explanation 2 to section 263 is attracted. Hence, the order passed by AO can’t be branded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. It may be noted that Sh. Ramawtar Agarwal, father of assessee purchased 5 bigha of agricultural land