SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB(1

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 1534(1)(a)- Held yes [Paras 7 and 8] [In favour of revenue]" (iii) In the case of CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 240 (SC), the SLP filed by the department has been admitted. The head note is as under DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers Section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 1534(1)(a)- Held yes [Paras 7 and 8] [In favour of revenue]" (iii) In the case of CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 240 (SC), the SLP filed by the department has been admitted. The head note is as under DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers Section

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

132 on basis of which notice was issued under section 1534(1)(a)- Held yes [Paras 7 and 8] [In favour of revenue]" (iii) In the case of CIT Vs MGF Automobiles Ltd. [2016] 72 taxmann.com 240 (SC), the SLP filed by the department has been admitted. The head note is as under DCIT vs. M/s Royal Jewellers Section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance in apparent from the details filed. These details have been filed by the appellant itself and that processing has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va), the details entered by the appellant are automatically detected

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

132(4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,85,690/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 1.50 crores. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(1)(b) on 29th February

SHRI MANOJ MOONDHRA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

132(4) of the Act disclosed an income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 27th December, 2014 declaring income of Rs. 1,78,85,690/- including the surrendered income of Rs. 1.50 crores. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153(1)(b) on 29th February

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 18. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 18. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 18. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 18. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 18. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are hereby dismissed.” 18. After considering the above findings of CIT(A), now we have gone through ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466, wherein

SHRI RITESH AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

132(4) has admitted and disclosed an amount of Rs. 7,22,00,000/- as undisclosed income. The assessee filed his return of income on 31.01.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 12,61,51,540/- which included undisclosed income of Rs. 7,22,00,000/-. The AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1

SHRI SURESH CHAND MITTAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

132(4) an undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The assessee filed his return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 1,14,78,820/- which includes undisclosed income of Rs. 1,03,60,000/-. The AO has completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 153A of the IT Act on 23rd March

AMBA TECH ENGINEERING,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 7,76,547/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan

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

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

disallowances sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) are deleted.” 12. A similar issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 508 wherein it has been held as under:- “The deletion with effect from April 1, 2004 by the Finance Act, 2003 of the second proviso