SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

191 ITR 667/59 Taxman 11 (SC), where the hon'ble apex court has observed as under (page 673) : "The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

191 ITR 667/59 Taxman 11 (SC), where the hon'ble apex court has observed as under (page 673) : "The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

191 ITR 667/59 Taxman 11 (SC), where the hon'ble apex court has observed as under (page 673) : "The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee

KARAM VIR YADAV,ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 96/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Karam Vir Yadav Cuke Cit(A), Vs. M/S Shashank Engg. Works, Nfac. 191, M.I.A., Alwar-301001. Pan No.: Aabpy 1852 H Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri J.P. Garg (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/11/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 28/06/2021 For The A.Y. 2019-20. Following Ground Has Been Taken By The Assessee: “ On The Facts Of The Case & As Per Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Returned Income While Processing Of Income Tax Return, U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act Amounting Rs. 1,14,148/- For Delay In Deposit Of Employees Contribution To Pf & Esi On Due Date Of The Respective Act Which Is Unjustified & Unlawful As It Was Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing It Return U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. This Was Also Allowed By Hon’Ble Itat, Jaipur & Hon’Ble High Court Of Rajasthan, Hon’Ble Itat Of 2

191, M.I.A., Alwar-301001. PAN No.: AABPY 1852 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri J.P. Garg (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 08/11/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 22/11/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN

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 [

section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 216 DTR 191/ 288 Taxman 384 (Del.) (HC) No disallowance

MAHADEV ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 14A would not be applicable if no exempt income was received or was receivable during relevant PY. PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 216 DTR 191/ 288 Taxman 384 (Del.) (HC) No disallowance

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

191/- towards Testing Expenses without making TDS, in view of insertion of explanation to section 195 by Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-1962. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 26.11.2018, mentioning therein as to why the above expense shall not be disallowed

SHRI ANIL KUMAR GUPTA,JHUNJHUNU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

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

disallowance of excessive or unreasonable portion the Section 40(A) can be invoked. Similar contentions were raised in respect of commission to Smt. Annu Gupta amounting to Rs. 4,32,191

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

191 ITR 667/59 Taxman 11 (SC), where the hon'ble apex court has observed as under (page 673) : "The terms of section 40A(3) are not absolute. Consideration of business expediency and other relevant factors are not excluded. Genuine and bona fide transactions are not taken out of the sweep of the section. It is open to the assessee

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 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that in case of interest payment of Rs. 2,39,196/- made to various financing companies on which TDS not deducted by the appellant company it is submitted that aforesaid amount was paid by the appellant company during the year under consideration and duly offered by these parties in their returns

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

disallowance sustained by ld. CIT(A), it is submitted that in case of interest payment of Rs. 2,39,196/- made to various financing companies on which TDS not deducted by the appellant company it is submitted that aforesaid amount was paid by the appellant company during the year under consideration and duly offered by these parties in their returns

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

disallowance was made, while under proceedings u/s 147/148 the opinion has changed. 1.2) Opinion while issuing Notice for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 154 dated 21/11/2017: ‘Mistake apparent on record' was the opinion of the ld. AO: The ld. AO (new incumbent officer - Shri Ajitesh Kumar) issued a notice that there remained a mistake that is apparent

OM PRAKASH RASORIA,ALWAR vs. ITO, ALWAR

Section 54B regarding investment in tubewell and others. In our considered opinion, for the purpose of carrying on the agricultural activity, tubewell and other expenses are for betterment of land and therefore, it will be considered a part of investment in the land and same is required to be accepted.” In view of the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowance is restricted to this figure – Relief : 8,52,359/-.’’ As regards Ground No. 2 & 3 of the Department: ‘’ 3.3 I have gone through the submission of the assessee and perused the assessment order. The issue is regarding treatment of LTCG earned by the appellant as income of the assessee. Appellant has taken technical ground that that reasons were recorded

OM KOTHARI FOUNDATION,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, (EXEMPTION) WARD-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

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

191) ITR 662), for initiation of action under section 147 (a) [as the provision stood at the relevant time) fulfillment of the two requisite conditions in that regard is essential. At that stage, the final outcome of the proceeding is not relevant b other words, at the initiation stage, what is required is reason to believe, but not the established

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

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