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

156 Janak Marg, Sirsi Road, Khatipur, Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAK5828M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 35/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Devi Shanker DCIT, Vs. 49, Laxmi Nagar Amer Road, CPC, Bangalore. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR

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

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

156 Janak Marg, Sirsi Road, Khatipur, Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAK5828M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 35/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Devi Shanker DCIT, Vs. 49, Laxmi Nagar Amer Road, CPC, Bangalore. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR

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

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

156 Janak Marg, Sirsi Road, Khatipur, Circle-1, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAAK5828M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 35/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Devi Shanker DCIT, Vs. 49, Laxmi Nagar Amer Road, CPC, Bangalore. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of ITAT, Kolkata Bench and ITAT. Bangalore Bench. It is submitted that in both the decisions the effect of insertion of Explanation 3 to section 40(a)(ii) has not been considered. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Harshad Shantilal Mehta Vs. Custodian (1998) 231 ITR 0871/99

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, we are of the view the ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act and in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, accordingly we hold that the ld. PCIT is not justified in directing

J.S.FOURWHEEL MOTORS (P) LTD ,ALWAR vs. ACIT. CIRCLE 1 ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

disallowance so made is just on presumption, assumption and surmises of the ld. Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), has erred in not giving any finding thereon and also erred in not disposing off the this ground on merit. 10. Section 156

M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTION,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of claim for higher depreciation made by the AO be sustained and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed based on the findings recorded in the order of the lower authorities. 8 M/s Balaji Construction/ Dinesh Choudhary vs. ACIT 7. All the ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is on account of action of ld. AO passing

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

156-159 Paigah House, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad, Telangana. |\n|---|---|---|\n| स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCG5541J | अपीलार्थी / Appellant | प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent |\n\nCO. No. 1 & 2/JPR/2022\n(Arising out of ITA. No. 306 & 307/JPR/2021)\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\n\n| M/s GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Toll Plaza, Ajmer Road, NH-8, Village Thikaria

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

156-159 Paigah House, Sardar Patel\n| Road, Secunderabad, Telangana.\n| स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCG5541J\n| अपीलार्थी / Appellant\n| प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\n\nCO. No. 1 & 2/JPR/2022\n(Arising out of ITA. No. 306 & 307/JPR/2021)\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18\n\n| M/s GVK Jaipur Expressway Pvt. Ltd.\n| Toll Plaza, Ajmer Road

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

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

disallowance will be made if after deduction of tax during the previous year, the same has been paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income specified in sub-section (1) of section 139." It is thus submitted that amendment regarding allowability of expenses, where TDS paid at any time before the due date of filing

RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

disallowance, on procedural ground, or not. It is observed that the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) - 6, Mumbairelied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)Principal Commissioner of Income-taxvs.Wipro Ltd.and [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 (SC)Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbaivs.Dilip Kumar & Company while dismissing the claim

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)

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

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)

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

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)

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.AO taken a plausible view on allowability of the same which is legally allowed as it is usual that interest free funds would

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance or any other adverse action. Thus, none of the conditions of clause (a) & (b) of Explanation 2 to section 263 is attracted. Hence, the order passed by AO can’t be branded as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. It may be noted that Sh. Ramawtar Agarwal, father of assessee purchased 5 bigha of agricultural land

M/S. AJMER ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,AJMER vs. PR.CIT, AJMER

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

disallow the same during the assessment proceedings which makes the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Thus, the order passed by the A.O. on 07.12.2017 is considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and a show-cause u/s 263 is hereby

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