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

disallowance of Rs.1,71,69,480/- under section 43B of the Act. On\nperusal of the Form 3CA in column no. 26(i) (B) (b) wherein it is mentioned that\namount of Rs.1,68,19

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

disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance out of interest paid on borrowed funds to Rs. 22,45,000/- as against that of Rs. 55,92,19,845/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries

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

disallowance under Section 14A in the case of the assessee\ncompany.\n19\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\n1.3.v In the below mentioned cases, Explanation inserted to Section 14A,\nvideFinance Act, 2022, is held to have a prospective effect.\n•\nERA Infrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022] 448 ITR 674 (Delhi) [CLC -\nPages 18,19

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)

disallowance of Rs.37,19,337/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

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)

19,844 76,84,499 2,96,04,343 Total (1+2) 63,25,69,782 7,26,90,293 69,34,83,925 It was also submitted that no exempt income has been earned during the assessment year under appeal so as to attract any disallowance under section

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

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

disallowance of Rs.4,31,441/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act on the ground that the PF contribution was deposited by the assessee after due date. The relevant observation of the ld. CIT(A) from para 3.0 to 3.4 dismissing the appeal of the assessee on the issue in question

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act. 2. Similar views have been taken by Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad Bench in the case of ACIT Circle(1) Vs Mohd Suhail ITA No. 1536/Hyd/2014 and Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case

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

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

disallowance of Rs.37,19,337/- u/s 14A\nr.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

19 and 30] [In favour of revenue] Amit Singh vs. DCIT, CPC 6.4 The head note of the decision of High Court of Gujarat in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) is as under: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 19. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 19. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

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

disallowance u/s 143(1). The said addition so made may therefore kindly be deleted. 19. Your kind attention is also invited towards the jurisdictional ITAT Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of Mohangarah Engineers & Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others in ITA No. 59 & 60/Jodh/2021 dated 27.9.2021, in which also even after amendment made it has been held that where the amount

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)

Section 10(38) on sale of “UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS FUND” which was purchased out of owned funds as assessee was having availability of ample of owned funds. So, no borrowing cost has been incurred towards purchase of this UTI TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS 19 Career Point Limited, Kota. FUND. The ld PCIT proposed disallowance

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1) (va) of the Act. 19. We further note that though the ld. CIT(A) has not disputed

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, provisions of section 143(1)(iv) cannot be invoked. vii. It is further submitted that provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following 19

ASHA PANCHARYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd (supra) and Indian Geotechnical Services (supra). As far as the applicability of amendment made