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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

DEVIKA BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the expense merely because notices issued under section 133(6) to third parties were not served or remained unverified

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. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

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

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

133 taxmann.com 135 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI had been deposited with a delay of few days from due dates mentioned under respective statute, but on or before due date of filing of return under section 139(1), same could not be disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133 taxmann.com 135 (Jaipur - Trib.) held that where amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI had been deposited with a delay of few days from due dates mentioned under respective statute, but on or before due date of filing of return under section 139(1), same could not be disallowed

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance can be made towards employees' contribution to provident fund & ES/C." 6. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the memorandum in the Finance Bill

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

133 (Gujarat) has held that Rule 8D(2)(ii) shall have no application where interest income earned outweigh interest expenditure. The ld PCIT calculated the proposed disallowance of Rs. 2,21,70,790/- against the indirect expenses under rule 8D (2)(ii). The assessee earned the exempt income of Rs. 62,529/- of long term capital gains under Section

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 131 by the suppliers cannot be the concern of the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that assessee was asked to produce the supplier. …………… ............ The assessing officer made the whole addition by pointing out certain lacunas in the bank account of the suppliers of the assessee, which cannot be permitted. Merely because 133(6) notices issued

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

disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1 )(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

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

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

disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1 )(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

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

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

disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1 )(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

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

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

disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1 )(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

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

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

disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1 )(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

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

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

disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1 )(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

133, the Hon'ble Delhi High\nCourt drew a distinction between “Lack of inquiry” and “inadequate\nenquiry" and held that, ‘in the case of inadequate enquiry, provisions\nunder section 263 cannot be invoked.'\nHon'ble Bombay High Court in Moil Ltd. Vs. CIT [81 Taxmann.com 420]\nobserved that if a query is raised during the assessment proceedings\nwhich was responded

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

Section 14A is not justified.” The SLP filed against the said judgment has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-IV, Ahmedabad V. Sintex Industries Ltd (2018) 93 taxmann.com 24 (SC). (vii) Emtici Engineering Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD). Anand Circle, Anand 2016 (3) TMI 186 - ITAT Ahmedabad. “It was noted from records

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance can be made: • CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd (2009) 185 Taxman 416(SC) • CIT vs JVVNL (2014) Rajasthan HC • CIT vs Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahkariSagh Ltd (2014) Rajasthan HC • ESSAE TERAOKA (P) LTD Vs DCIT 366 ITR 408 (Karnataka HC) • CIT Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd And Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd [2014] 363 ITR 30 (Rajasthan