INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

133(6) were also issued to M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd on 09.07.2013 & 05.10.2018 whose account was report as suspicious but the same were returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks ‘ not known’ / ‘moved’. Thereafter, KYC of M/s Orchid Trexim Pvt Ltd was called for from the UCO Bank and it is noticed that the address given

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

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, 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

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

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

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet the assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact. 5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important role in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this case

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet the assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact. 5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important role in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this case

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

133(6) was issued only & only in AY 2016-17 yet the assessee filed the ROI in all other years. The AO intently avoided this fact. 5B. Human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances also plays an important role in the income tax proceedings as held in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC). In this case

AJD DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Appellant Hearing.”

disallowance cannot be added back to the income of assessee on this ground. Some of such decisions are: (i) Phool Singh Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) ITA no2901/Del/2014: It is held that Merely because 133(6) notices issued to the party returned un-served though it was the same address, which was supplied by supplier while filing its income tax return

VENKATESHWARA WIRES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Ao As Well As Before The Ld. Cit(A) As The Documents Submitted Was Only In Support Of Confirmations & Other Documents Already Submitted & No New Documents Were Submitted. 2. The Assessee Craves Your Indulgence To Add Amend Or Alter All Or Any Grounds Of Appeal Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

133(6) issued by the ld. AO. Since the said notices were replied in part the ld. AO made the addition of Rs. 1,95,25,000/- in the hands of the assessee that identity, creditworthiness was not established and therefore was treated as unexplained u/s. 68 of the Act. 4 Venkateshwara Wires Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 4. Aggrieved from

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 133(6) of the Act cannot be sole basis for disallowance of purchases from these parties. 20 Durga Prasad

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

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 under section 43B or under section

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 under section 43B or under section

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

ITO, JAIPUR vs. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

disallowance of entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He has further submitted that the only ground of sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT (A) is that the notice issued by the AO under section 133(6

HIGHRISE PROPCON PVT. LTD.(NOW AS N M FINANCIERS PVT. LTD.),JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable and

disallowance of entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. He has further submitted that the only ground of sustaining the addition by the ld. CIT (A) is that the notice issued by the AO under section 133(6

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, BUNDI vs. M/S ARAVALI PRIME CONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., BUNDI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with no order as to cost

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties

disallowance of share premium received on the issue of shares. The facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- As regards the additional Ground no. 3, it is to be seen in consonance with the Ground taken in original form no. 35 filed which challenges the addition of Rs. 2, 63, 18,600/-made