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

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

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 14A of the Act and the disallowance of Rs. 24.90 lakhs sustained by the CIT(A) should be allowed as a deduction to the Appellant. 16

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 14A of the Act and the disallowance of Rs. 24.90 lakhs sustained by the CIT(A) should be allowed as a deduction to the Appellant. 16

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 14A of the Act and the disallowance of Rs. 24.90 lakhs sustained by the CIT(A) should be allowed as a deduction to the Appellant. 16

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

section (1) thereof to income 'under the act' and not 'of the year'\nand a disallowance under s.14A r.w. Rule 8D can thus be effected\neven in a situation where a tax payer has not earned any taxable\nincome in a particular year.\n9. We are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid view...\"\n“...16

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, it is necessary that exempt income is earned by the assessee during the previous year. Thus, the Circular issued by CBDT do not lay out the correct position of law. This has specifically been clarified by the Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. IL & FS Energy Development 16

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 16,46,879 u/s\n36(1)(va). Therefore order of the learned AO passed under section\n143

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

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.’’

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 16. The said decision has subsequently

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

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.” 16. 15 M/s. Dolcas Botanosys Pvt. Ltd. vs ADIT

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

16,000 Nil Short credit of TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses Rs.40,42,000/- Disallowance u/s 14A Rs.37,19,337/- After the order of Hon’ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to show cause

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 sections 10AA,\n80-IA, 80-1AB, 80-1B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section 80-IE if the\nreturn is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139, or\n(vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A\nor Form 16

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

16-17/Vol-1 21/1029027261(1) The very basis of initiation of proceedings under Section 263 is that any order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Assessment order as passed by Ld. AO is enclosed herewith at PB page no. 13-14/Vol-1 for your kind perusal

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance either in writing or in electronic mode, therefore, entire section 143(1) proceedings being invalid in law, intimation issued by CPC was to be quashed and set aside. 10. The order for processing of return passed u/s 143(1) suffers from the fundamental defect of not providing any opportunity to the assessee company. The specific legal requirement contained

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” 12 M/s. Shiv Veg Pro Pvt. Ltd. vs CPC, Bengaluru/ ACIT, Circle-1, Kota 16