INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

section 147 of the IT Act on 29.03.2013 at a total income of Rs. 20,28,203/- by making addition on account of net surplus as per income and expenditure account at Rs. 15,37,806/- and disallowance

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

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

15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. 5.1.6 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned action of Ld. AO in disallowing

JODHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,JODHPUR vs. DCIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 665 & 666/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2013-14 Jodhpur Development Authority 1, Opposite Railway Hospital, JDA Circle, Jodhpur. cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Jodhpur. LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAALJ 0478 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kothari (C.A.) jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by:

15), has not been breached. Similarly, the insertion of section 13(8), seventeenth proviso to section 10(23C) and third oroviso to section 143(3) (all w.r.e.f. 1-4-2009), reaffirm this interpretation and bring uniformity across the statutory provisions. 5.1.6 All the facts and circumstances related to the impugned action of Ld. AO in disallowing

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15

ACIT(EXEMP), CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowable expenditure it has shown net loss of Rs. 4,92,41,31,841/-. The corporation is registered as a charitable institution u/s 12A(a) of the IT Act dated 08.03.1989. The objects fall in the last limb of the definition of section 2(15

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

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

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

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

15-16 at Rs.17,20,570/- and Service Tax payable for F.Y. 16-\n17 of Rs.62,99,520/-. In the absence of relevant evidence, the AO held that the\nsame was unpaid within the stipulated time period as per provision of section 43B\nof the Act and Hence, he disallowed

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

15-16 at Rs.17,20,570/- and Service Tax payable for F.Y. 16-\n17 of Rs.62,99,520/-. In the absence of relevant evidence, the AO held that the\nsame was unpaid within the stipulated time period as per provision of section 43B\nof the Act and Hence, he disallowed

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

15-16 at Rs.17,20,570/- and Service Tax payable for F.Y. 16-\n17 of Rs.62,99,520/-. In the absence of relevant evidence, the AO held that the\nsame was unpaid within the stipulated time period as per provision of section 43B\nof the Act and Hence, he disallowed

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance, it could not be a ground to make\ndisallowance in terms of section 14A, read with rule 8D - Held, yes\n[Para 23] [In favour of assessee]..”\n•\nRedington (India) Ltd. [2017] 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras)\n[CLC - Pages 13 and 15

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. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 1st February 2021 after considering the detailed submissions filed in response to notices issued under section 142(1) of 4 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. the Act passed an assessment order making an addition of Rs 15

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,93,122/- made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.’’ 4.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted during the course of hearing that