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

disallowing or making an addition on such issue or subject matter. It is settled proposition of law as held in the series of decisions, some of which has been relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee and cited (supra) that the ld. CIT(A) while exercising its power for enhancement U/s 251 of the Act cannot bring

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

disallowing or making an addition on such issue or subject matter. It is settled proposition of law as held in the series of decisions, some of which has been relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee and cited (supra) that the ld. CIT(A) while exercising its power for enhancement U/s 251 of the Act cannot bring

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

disallowance of Rs.18,49,116/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF. The assessee challenged the said adjustment before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and contended that as per the binding precedents if the payment is made in the government account before due date of filing of return of income U/s 139(1) of the Act then

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)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act cannot be made. Further, Circular No 5 of 2014 issued by the CBDT on 11 February 2014 [PB 116

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- amendment that was made available on the statute vide the Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f. 01.04.2021 been made compatible, and in fact workable, to facilitate a disallowance contemplated u/s.80P w.e.f. A.Y.2021-22, therefore, it is beyond comprehension that as to how any such adjustment could have been 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

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

116 ITD 1 (Kolkata) (SB) held that- “Now coming to departmental appeal in the case of Sri Shyamal Kr. Dey (supra), the Assessing Officer has determined the income by applying a net profit rate of the turnover. The Assessing Officer in addition to the determination of net profit as a percentage of turnover, made further disallowance under section

LAKHANI SHOEE CO. PVT. LTD vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest can be made under the aforesaid section. Following cases support the above contention. 1. Redington (India) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Range-V, Chennai (2017) 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras) 2. Ms. Amita Verma vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 91(Delhi-Trib.) 3. Joint Investment

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S JAINCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SUDHA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant A Y? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very ITA 671/JP/2017 ACIT Vs. Sudha Hospital 5 case

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S TOLARAM SATYADEV AGRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KOTA vs. M/S NARESH KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR, , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest

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

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

section 145(3) and confirming the trading addition of Rs. 2.00 lacs. 8.2 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of Mining of sand stone and export the production of the mines in the name of M/s V.S. Stones and also manufacturing and trading of Marble Block. The assessee has filed his return