DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

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

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

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

138/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated Group Zero vs. ITO 25.02.2020 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 11,81,570/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

disallowance taken by the AO was not correct and beyond the scope of section 43Bof the Act. In support of its contention, the appellant has also relied upon Explanation 1 of section 43B of the Act. The appellant has also relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements. (v) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

disallowance taken by the AO was not correct and beyond the scope of section 43Bof the Act. In support of its contention, the appellant has also relied upon Explanation 1 of section 43B of the Act. The appellant has also relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements. (v) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

disallowance taken by the AO was not correct and beyond the scope of section 43Bof the Act. In support of its contention, the appellant has also relied upon Explanation 1 of section 43B of the Act. The appellant has also relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements. (v) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order

DCIT, C-2, AJMER vs. JAI NARAYAN AGARWAL,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

138 as against which, the assessing officer disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,36,28,000 which is more than the exempt income. The assessee further argued 7 DCIT vs. Jai Narayan Agarwal that dis-allowance under 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)

138 without referring the matter to the Full Bench is directly in conflict with that given in 389 ITR 578 and thus has no precedent value. Otherwise also, where there is conflict between the decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred. So far as amendment to 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)

138 without referring the matter to the Full Bench is directly in conflict with that given in 389 ITR 578 and thus has no precedent value. Otherwise also, where there is conflict between the decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred. So far as amendment to 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)

138 without referring the matter to the Full Bench is directly in conflict with that given in 389 ITR 578 and thus has no precedent value. Otherwise also, where there is conflict between the decisions of non jurisdictional High Courts, then a view which is in favour of the assessee is to be preferred. So far as amendment to section

THE AJMER COOPERATIVE THRIFT AND SAVING SOCIETY LIMITED AJMER,AJMER vs. CIT(A), NFAC, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) whereas on the contrary the assessee claimed that the business of the appellant society is to provide credit facility to its members and accepts the deposits from its members only to develop the habits of saving amongst themselves. The ld. A/R of the assessee has also argued that the surplus

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 43B 15,42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 43B 15,42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India