NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed u/s 438 or u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act • CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 • CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 • CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 • Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Rajasthan state Seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) • Income

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131

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

131 ITR 451)(SC) 52 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which has no application to the facts of this case as the decision is in the context of an assessee making a claim for partition and requesting the AO to pass an order under section 25A of the 1922 Act. The assessment order was passed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 ITR 451)(SC) 52 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which has no application to the facts of this case as the decision is in the context of an assessee making a claim for partition and requesting the AO to pass an order under section 25A of the 1922 Act. The assessment order was passed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

131 ITR 451)(SC) 52 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. which has no application to the facts of this case as the decision is in the context of an assessee making a claim for partition and requesting the AO to pass an order under section 25A of the 1922 Act. The assessment order was passed

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B which provides that the definition of due dates as per section

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177-2011); Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.189-2011), followed." 2.6 The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has also

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return as per section 143(1)(a)(iv). 2 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI,FLAT NO. B-9, D-224, TANWAR RESIDENCY, TULSI MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed the payment of ESI/PF contribution of Rs.34,17,632/0 on the ground that the same was not paid within time allowed under the respective Act. The addition has been made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld. AR further submitted that it is settled position of law upto the stage

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR vs. M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

131, the admission of Rs. 5 Crore made therein was an adhoc figure on absolutely estimate basis as looking to volume of documents having total 49 volumes with so many papers in each volume and in absence of books of account which were got deleted due to computer error, it was not possible for the directors of the appellant company

M/S MOJIKA REAL ESTATE & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3 , JAIPUR

In the result, the sole ground of appeal taken by the assessee is hereby dismissed

131, the admission of Rs. 5 Crore made therein was an adhoc figure on absolutely estimate basis as looking to volume of documents having total 49 volumes with so many papers in each volume and in absence of books of account which were got deleted due to computer error, it was not possible for the directors of the appellant company

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

131 were issued but were not served to these parties. Since, the assessee could not proof these credits in the books of account in the name of the above parties the addition was made for an amount of Rs. 3,17,55,786/- as per provisions of section 41(1) of the Act holding it to be cession of liability

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

131 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.) (HC) 3 M/S. READY ROTI INDIA PVT LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

NICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,1-A,KESHEV NAGAR, CIVIL LINES,JAIPUR,RAJASTHAN,INDIA,302019 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1. CIT vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR 62 (Raj) 2. CIT vs Alom Extrusion Ltd. 319 ITR 306 (SC) 3. CIT Vs SBBJ(2014) 99 DTR 131 (Raj-HC) 4. CIT vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.-HC) 5. ACIT vs Om Metals & Minerals (P) Ltd. (ITAT Jaipur Bench

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT, which are produced as under:- “1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 265 CTR 62 (Raj.). 2. VIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, High Courts and ITAT, which are produced as under:- “1. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited 265 CTR 62 (Raj.). 2. VIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (2014) 99 DTR 131