SMT. RENU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 5(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the matter is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and the sole ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Act stating that the Appellant have deposited the amount under Capital Gains Scheme after the due date of filing return of income and the same was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). It was submitted that while making such addition, the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have not appreciated

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

disallowing the claim of assessee for late filing of the form 10 -DA. The AR for the assessee placed reliance on decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Association of Indian Panel Board Manufacturer (kindly see paper book page no. 13-17) in which on similar facts, the Gujarat High Court held that once the appropriate form

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

139(1) only. AO was not convinced with the argument advanced by the assessee in her favour and disallowed the claim of the assessee. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-46, Mumbai. 5. Ld. CIT (A) also affirmed the view of AO. Against this order of Ld. CIT (A), assessee preferred this appeal before

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80P during relevant years 2018-19 and 2019-20 on grounds of late filing of return was unjustified 7.4 We note that the instant case, there was a delay in filing the return of income by the assessee for the assessment year 2019-20 and return of income was filed within due date permissible

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as per the provision\r\nof section 80AC of the Act.\r\n5. 1. Before moving further, let me first surface provision of section 80AC of the Act\r\nwhich comes into force from 01/04/2018. The provision of section 80AC is as under\r\n:-\r\n[Deduction not to be allowed unless return

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139(1) of the Act and it was contended that such claim can be made in the return filed in response to notice under Section 153A of the Act as it was over riding all proceedings earlier taken overall. The AO denied deduction in assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The Court at para

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. Vide solitary ground raised in this appeal the assessee challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. The brief facts related to the issue on hand are that the return of income

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

section 139 mentioned in the act for that purpose includes all subsections. However, if the amount is not actually utilized within the time limit, exemption can’t be claimed by depositing the amount after due date mentioned u/s 139(1). If the assessee wants to deposit the amount in capital gain account, the deposition has to be within the time

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

139(1) of the Act shall be disallowed. We therefore find that both the provisions of section 195(1) as well as section 40(a)(i) of the Act talks about deduction of tax at source where the sum is chargeable under the Act. 13. As per provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, the total income

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

9 Sushil Kumar Tea Enterprises P Ltd. Vs. ACIT Special Bench found that One consequence of failure to file return of income on or before the due date u/s,139(l) of the Act was levy of interest u/s.234A of the Act as per which, the assessee is liable to pay interest on the tax payable by him after reducing

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 (Raj.). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance by purportedly following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 13th March, 2018 in case

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

139(1), same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va). The Hon’ble bench further held that these amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years". The impugned assessment year is assessment year 2019-20 and therefore, the said amendment cannot

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

139(1) - Held, yes - Assessee State transport corporation collected a sum being provident fund contribution from its employees - However, it had •deposited lesser sum in provident fund- account Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B - However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since assessee had not deposited said contribution in respective

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which are cited as under: "Income deemed ………………………………………………………… by him. 3.10 This being the stated position and the factum of the case that the payment made by the assessee to a non-resident is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 195 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which call for deduction

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowances under section 14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowances under section 14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance so made kindly be deleted. 9 M/s. Shiv Veg Pro Pvt. Ltd. vs CPC, Bengaluru/ ACIT, Circle-1, Kota 5.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 5.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted during the course of hearing that

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” Para 24: “Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the assessee.” c. CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 Relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the decision

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

disallowance for late deposit of contribution to PF and ESI debatable in nature hence adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) can not be made. The latest judgment in case S.V. Engineering Constructions India (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Visakhapatnam) 1.T.A.No.130/Viz/2021 on same facts with referring decision in the case of Andhra Trade Development Corporation in LT.A No.434/Viz/2019 dated 05.05.2021 taken