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 145(3). 28.7. Assessee has also provided details of 2 comparable companies where their profit had also shown a reduction in AY 2012-13. CRISIL data also revealed that the entire industry was suffering. Assessee's entries in the books are based on invoice. Agents and dealers billed same rate to assessee. Further, the downward fall in gross profit

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

184/- as an allowable business expenditure, as no disallowance was required to be made as the appellant was having sufficient interest free funds to make such investment. Reliance is placed on Apex court judgement in the case of South Indian Bank Ltd. –vs.- CIT [2021] 130 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/[2021] 283 Taxman 178 (SC). 9.That in view of the judgment

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40A(2) of the Act, any unreasonable expenditure is disallowable. Identical issue has been covered by the Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana in the case of Subhash Chander Malik vs. DCIT [2015] 57 taxmann.com 180 (Punjab & Haryana) wherein the Hon'ble Court, upheld the disallowance made by the AO on account of excess rent paid. Further

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) — He thus passed a revisional order setting aside

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

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow interest and remuneration paid to partners as per section 184(5) — He thus passed a revisional order setting aside

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

184 (Rajasthan) has confirmed the requirement of clearly specifying the sub clause of section 270A(9), prior to concluding that assessee has misreported the particulars of income. INCOME TAX : Where GST Input Credit was mistakenly merged with expenses and same was suomotu surrendered by assessee by revising return, however revenue imposed penalty under section 270A, since revenue wasn't sure

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

184 (Rajasthan) has confirmed the requirement of clearly specifying the sub clause of section 270A(9), prior to concluding that assessee has misreported the particulars of income. INCOME TAX : Where GST Input Credit was mistakenly merged with expenses and same was suomotu surrendered by assessee by revising return, however revenue imposed penalty under section 270A, since revenue wasn't sure

SHRI BABOO LAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

Section 184(5) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the interest and remuneration paid to the partners

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

184/- The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the case was subsequently selected for Complete Scrutiny. While assessing the case under consideration, the AO has disallowed

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 40A(3), as applying the GP rate takes care of expenditure paid otherwise by way of crossed cheque also. x) CIT vs. Purshottamlal Tamrakar Uchehra (2003) 184 CTR (MP) 349/270 ITR 314 (MP) Business expenditure—Disallowance

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

LATE SH. BHIM SEN BATRA L/H SH. HIMANSHU BATRA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

LATE SH. BHEEM SEN BATRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, ALWAR

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

disallowance of Rs. 30,000/- out of cash discount of Rs. 1,86,067/- given to the customers. 5. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 6. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. 3 ITA Nos. 184, 185/JP/2015 & ITA No. 439/JP/2016 Late Shri Bheem Sen Batra, Alwar. Ground No. 1 is regarding validity

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)

disallowed 20 per cent. or 10 per cent., as the case may be, out of the various expenses, which, in our view, is not proper and he had to bring on record justifiable basis for making of an addition and bring on record some evidence for making of addition. 12. The hon'ble apex court as well as this court

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)

disallowed 20 per cent. or 10 per cent., as the case may be, out of the various expenses, which, in our view, is not proper and he had to bring on record justifiable basis for making of an addition and bring on record some evidence for making of addition. 12. The hon'ble apex court as well as this court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow the expenses of the income as the case may be, if the same is not income in expenses as per the approved bye-laws but nonetheless cancellation of registration is uncalled for. 12. In that view of the matter, all the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. However, we make it clear that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow the expenses of the income as the case may be, if the same is not income in expenses as per the approved bye-laws but nonetheless cancellation of registration is uncalled for. 12. In that view of the matter, all the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. However, we make it clear that

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow the expenses of the income as the case may be, if the same is not income in expenses as per the approved bye-laws but nonetheless cancellation of registration is uncalled for. 12. In that view of the matter, all the issues are answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. However, we make it clear that