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-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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-Apr-11 2 Reliance

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

161 149 15-02-2019 310 20-03-2019 7 Fund Provident 15-03-2019 84,323 20-03-2019 8 13,784 70,539 Fund Provident 17,256 70,214 15-04-2018 87,470 15-04-2019 9 Fund

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

161/-and ESI amounting to Rs.4,34,636/- after the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.50,48,797/- u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24(x) of Income Tax Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the after considering the amendment made by Finance Act, 2021 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 on account of late deposit of PF and ESI employee’s contribution. 8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee

RAJESH MOTORS (AUTO) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1) , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 on account of late deposit of PF and ESI employee’s contribution. 8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee

TAJ GRANITES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 on account of late deposit of PF and ESI employee’s contribution. 8. Being aggrieved by the impugned order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

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

section has been enacted to enforce that taxes and Government dues are\nactually paid when the same is claimed as expenditure, including in respect of\nassessee who maintain accounts on mercantile basis. The AO has disallowed\nthe amount by noting that Government dues have remained unpaid hence the\nsame was disallowed. On the other hand the appellant has applied

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

section has been enacted to enforce that taxes and Government dues are\nactually paid when the same is claimed as expenditure, including in respect of\nassessee who maintain accounts on mercantile basis. The AO has disallowed\nthe amount by noting that Government dues have remained unpaid hence the\nsame was disallowed. On the other hand the appellant has applied

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

section has been enacted to enforce that taxes and Government dues are\nactually paid when the same is claimed as expenditure, including in respect of\nassessee who maintain accounts on mercantile basis. The AO has disallowed\nthe amount by noting that Government dues have remained unpaid hence the\nsame was disallowed. On the other hand the appellant has applied

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

disallowance of benefit of section 11 of the Income Tax Act questions all receipts of the assessee association and addition is made on net surplus amount after allowing the expenditure allowable. Hence, the receipts as per 26AS and services as per service tax return were considered while making addition. The case of the association has to be viewed from

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

161-164 NA Kumar Bose vs ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 282 (Calcutta) 10. Copy of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sapphire 165-176 NA Land Development (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 50 (Mumbai - Trib.) 11. Remand report dated 16 August 2024 obtained by CIT(A) from 177-178 NA the AO 12. Rejoinder submission

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

161-164 NA Kumar Bose vs ITO [2024] 158 taxmann.com 282 (Calcutta) 10. Copy of decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Sapphire 165-176 NA Land Development (P) Ltd vs DCIT [2023] 147 taxmann.com 50 (Mumbai - Trib.) 11. Remand report dated 16 August 2024 obtained by CIT(A) from 177-178 NA the AO 12. Rejoinder submission

JAIPUR ENGINEERING COLLEGE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of donation of Rs. 40,00,000/- paid to Amma Chandrawati Educational & Charitable Trust on the ground that exemption u/s 11 is denied. 4. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in neither allowing the capital expenditure and repayment of loan claimed as application of income of Rs. 62,31,505/- nor depreciation

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed interest paid by the appellant to these companies and claimed as a business expenditure. This all shows that the ld. AO was having pre conceived notion for making addition in the income of the assessee. The way which he has followed 20 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not valid

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

161 Taxman 316 (SC) and subsequently reiterated in Dy. CIT v. Zuari Estate Development & Investment Co. Ltd. [2015] 63 taxmann.com 177/[2016] 236 Taxman 1 (SC). 2.2 As per 2nd proviso to section 153A, assessment proceedings pending on the date of search shall abate. Further, in view of the provisions of section 153A(2), only the abated assessment proceedings could