THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Section 143(1)(a)(v) was only post-\namendment that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act,\n2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 been made compatible, and in fact workable, to\nfacilitate a disallowance contemplated u/s.80P w.e.f. A.Y.2021-22, therefore,\nit is beyond comprehension that as to how any such adjustment could have\nbeen made by the CPC, Bengaluru vide

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

TRUWORTH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance u/s 14A was to be made similar legal view was upheld in Bicom Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT (2021) 431 ITR 326(Kar) and in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Sterling Developers P. Ltd. (2021) 129 taxmann.com 116 (Kar). The Madras High Court in case of CIT Vs. Tamilnadu Rood Development Co. Ltd. (2021) 436 ITR 323/279 Taxman 125 held

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowance of the assessee's\r\nclaim for deduction u/s.80P of Rs.16,40,116/- made by the A.O.\r\nIt is also noteworthy to mention that the CBDT vide its Circular No. 13/2023\r\ndt.26.07.2023 has directed the Department to allow the condonation of delay\r\nwhere the return has been filed after due date as to claim made

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

116 may,— (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act; (b) amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143; (c) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 200A; (d) amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB. According to the provisions of sec154

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of claim for higher depreciation made by the AO be sustained and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed based on the findings recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 8 M/s Balaji Construction/ Dinesh Choudhary vs. ACIT 7. All the ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is on account of action of ld. AO passing

DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

disallowed: Particulars Total Grand Total ROC Fee -Increase in Authorised Capital Filing Fee 5,25,000 Stamp Duty Fee 3,50,000 Franking Fee Payment 63,000 9,38,000 Trade Mark Fee 16,000 16,000 Total 9,54,000 2. Submission for ROC Filing Fee amounting to Rs. 9,38,000 is outside the purview of Section

ADITYA CEMENT,BEHROR vs. ITO, BEHROR

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

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

116 may.- (a)amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act:] (b)[ amend any intimation or deemed intimation under sub-section (1) of section 143.] d. [ amend any intimation under sub-section (1) of section 206CB.J (1-A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

116 and 142 of\nExhibit 1 to Annexure-A, and Rs. 1,16,00,000 based on Pg. No. 24 and 25 of\nExhibit 2 to Annexure-A. It was submitted before us that no addition could be\nmade based on the alleged loans, as the documents were rough notes without\nsubstantive corroborative evidence. At best, any addition, if warranted

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

116 and 142 of\nExhibit 1 to Annexure-A, and Rs. 1,16,00,000 based on Pg. No. 24 and 25 of\nExhibit 2 to Annexure-A. It was submitted before us that no addition could be\nmade based on the alleged loans, as the documents were rough notes without\nsubstantive corroborative evidence. At best, any addition, if warranted

BHAWANI CHEM,JAIPUR vs. ASSESING OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

116 may amend any ORDER passed by it or Intimation under section 143(1), if found any mistake apparent from the record. Further, the literal interpretation of the mistake apparent from the record means "A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which is established by a long-drawn process of reasoning

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

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

disallowance of legal & professional, office,\nconsultancy, garden development expenses.\nSince these new issue/aspects arose in the very first assessment /\nintimation order u/s 143(1) dated 16.10.2018 only, wherein no such\naddition was made, thus any error, assuming if any (though not\nconceding but alternatively only), could have been found in that\nassessment order itself and limitation has to be reckoned

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowed claim u/s 54F (which was allowed to the assessee in original assessment) by alleging that the assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset. Therefore, the whole assessment order is passed on wrong understanding the facts. This mistake has arisen because of the reason that the provisions

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

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

DCIT, CR-7, JAIPUR vs. SHRI ANIL GUPTA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing” Dcit Vs. Shri Anil Gupta

disallowance is made is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 3. Without prejudice to above, the order passed u/s 154 is also not valid in law. Section 154 of the Act reads as under:- “154. (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116