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. On the other hand, the ld. D/R relying on the order of the Assessing Officer submitted the ld. CIT (A) was not right in deleting the disallowance. 17

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

17,20,570+62,99,520)\nOutstanding GST as on 31st Mar 2018 for AY\n2018-19\n28,13,732\nLess: Amount Paid before 30.10.2019 (PB)\n28,13,732\nTotal ST Disallowance as per TAR (B)\n64,83,823\nTotal Disallowance as per Order\n42,03,553 1,95,27,207\nRemark\nIn AY 2019-20 the CA should have

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

17,20,570+62,99,520)\nOutstanding GST as on 31st Mar 2018 for AY\n2018-19\n28,13,732\nLess: Amount Paid before 30.10.2019 (PB)\n28,13,732\nTotal ST Disallowance as per TAR (B)\n64,83,823\nTotal Disallowance as per Order\n42,03,553\n1,95,27,207\n1. The CA has disalowed Outstanding

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

17,20,570+62,99,520)\nOutstanding GST as on 31st Mar 2018 for AY\n2018-19\n28,13,732\nLess: Amount Paid before 30.10.2019 (PB)\n28,13,732\nTotal ST Disallowance as per TAR (B)\n64,83,823\nTotal Disallowance as per Order\n42,03,553 1,95,27,207\n1. The CA has disalowed Outstanding

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

17) r.w.s. 2(26) (ia) of the Act, the assessee is a 'Company' and the MAT provisions are applicable to all companies. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is not liable to MAT even after amendment in the Act and section 115JB

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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 read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

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)

section 14A of the Act is not applicable to attract any disallowance more so when no exempt income has been earned by the Appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decision : • Satya Narayan Dhoot vs PCIT I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 order dated 17

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 read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

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 read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

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)

section 271(1)(c) by holding that the amount of Rs.2,13,17,575/- added or disallowed by the AO which

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 17. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

MODERN INSULATORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

17,10,000/- in the shares and securities and the assessee had also debited interest expenses of Rs. 9,69,03,638/- in the Profit & Loss account. Therefore, the AO proposed to make the disallowance of expenses under section

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