RAJESH MOTORS MOTOCORP PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CIRCLE-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

193/- which was processed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act and in terms of intimation dated 13.11.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 1,69,855/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to Rajesh

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

section 115JB, Explanation-1(c) are\nnot applicable in the case of the assessee company and thus the provision\nmade towards the surface renewal coat being ascertained liability deserves to\nbe allowed as claimed.\n\nIt is further submitted that it cannot be said that it is a simple provision made\nbut rather it is an expenditure which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

disallowed the same while determining\nthe income under the regular provisions holding that the basis of\nestimation of such cost of overlay expenses is not done on a scientific\nbasis and is thus in a nature of contingent liability. On appeal, the ld\nCIT(A) has returned a finding that expenditure related to keeping the\nroughness of the highway

DCIT, C-2, AJMER vs. JAI NARAYAN AGARWAL,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

Section 14A may apply. This is so because what is relevant is not the earning of exempt income but having expenditure relatable to exempt income (in whichever year it may actually be earned). Therefore proportionate interest pertaining to investment for earning of dividend is disallowable even if no exempt income is earned during the year. 3 DCIT vs. Jai Narayan

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

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 was not invoked. In the year under consideration there is no investment in the agricultural land. In all earlier years no disallowance was made u/s 14A. Hence by following the rule of consistency, if the AO has not made any enquiry on this issue, his order cannot be held erroneous. Reliance in this connection is placed

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

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.

Section 13 to 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

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.

Section 13 to 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

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.

Section 13 to 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

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.AO taken a plausible view on allowability of the same which is legally allowed as it is usual that interest free funds would

ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT. LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed with no orders as to cost

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

Section 145(3) of Act is a provision in the statute the application of which depends on books of account maintained by the assessee ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS PVT LTD VS ACIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR in respect of genuineness of expenses or other entries in the books of account. In Assessee’s case, no defect was noticed or pointed but additions/disallowances were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

193. Hon'ble High Court has held that when the assessee as well as its subsidiaries were in the same tax bracket and paid the same rate of tax, there was no question of diversion of funds by paying higher rate to subsidiary companies and, therefore, no disallowance could be made under Section

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

193. Hon'ble High Court has held that when the assessee as well as its subsidiaries were in the same tax bracket and paid the same rate of tax, there was no question of diversion of funds by paying higher rate to subsidiary companies and, therefore, no disallowance could be made under Section

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

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

section only companies having net profit are required\nto incur CSR whereas the CER expenditure are as per the guidelines of Ministry for\nEnvironment Protection is mandatorily required to incur irrespective of profit or\nloss of the company and levied on a lump sum basis or per tonne of extraction\ndone by the assessee. Further Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court