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 43B could not have been applied to the case of the\nassessee.\"\n1.4.4 CIT v. ATS Real Estate Builders (P.) Ltd. [2025] 172 taxmann.com 611\n(Delhi - Trib.) (DC 14-16) held that,\n“6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance

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

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. 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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

172). This interest is considered as incurred on advancing the funds to related parties without interest/at lower interest. Considering all these facts the disallowance made by the AO is restricted to Rs. 24,42,040. The balance disallowance is deleted. In the result, this ground is partly allowed.” 7. The Revenue is aggrieved from the findings

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

172/- and disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets of Rs.42,49,575/- made in the original assessment order dt. 25.02.2015 were sustained in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act dt. 24.10.2018.’’ 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld CIT(A) in which

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

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Assessee has strenuously submitted and justified that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is required for having deposited the employee’s contribution to relevant fund before the due date of filing of return of income and even before the end of the relevant previous year. 7. Further with respect to the issue

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance as revenue expenditure, then in the given case the conditions of Section 35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance as revenue expenditure, then in the given case the conditions of Section 35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance as revenue expenditure, then in the given case the conditions of Section 35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by assessee was disallowed - Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire disallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation Wing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further verification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 253(5) of the Act, we hereby condone the delay in filing the present appeal as we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time and the appeal is hereby admitted for adjudication on merits." 7. The action or inaction by an assessee, on the advice of its counsel, whether correct

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

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

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

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

section 139;\n38. The refund has been granted by way of adjustment against the demand in\nΑ.Υ. 2012-13 on 18.12.2019. Therefore, interest u/s. 244A of the Act is to be\ncalculated from 01.04.2018 to 18.12.2019 i.e. for 21 months. All these facts were\nexplained before the Ld. CIT (A) but the same were ignored by him. In view

GILLETTE INDIA LIMITED,SPA-65A, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DISTRICT- ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

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

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

section 263 by Finance Act, 2015, w.e.f. 01.06.2015, which has widened the powers of CIT to revise the already completed assessment. In the present case ld. PCIT has taken shelter of clause (a) and (b) of the same, which reads as under: Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

disallowance of Rs.30,35,538/- being 10% of the amount of Rs. 3,03,53,582/- claimed as application of income. 3. First of all, we take up the appeal of the Department for adjudication in relation to the above mentioned grounds of appeal. 3.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Department wherein

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)

section 153A of the Act is annulled in appeal or any other proceeding. 16. Section 153A bears the heading "Assessment in case of search or requisition". It is "well settled as held by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions that the heading or the Section Can be regarded as a key to the interpretation of the operative portion