ARJUN RAM GURJAR,VILLAGE GUDA MANPURA, TEHSIL MASUDA, BEAWAR, AJMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

197/- 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 pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

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.”

disallowance ultimately directed works out to nearly 110% of that sum, i.e., Rs.52,56,197/-. By no stretch of imagination can Section

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,143, GOMEZ DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 13 of the Act. At the same time, assessee was also asked to furnish details of all persons to whom the assesseehad paid salary exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-; to furnish information regarding qualification of such persons and the duties assigned to them. Copy of their appointment letter was also sought for. 23. Assessee submitted reply dated

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 13 of the Act. At the same time, assessee was also asked to furnish details of all persons to whom the assesseehad paid salary exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-; to furnish information regarding qualification of such persons and the duties assigned to them. Copy of their appointment letter was also sought for. 23. Assessee submitted reply dated

SHISHPAL SINGH JADAUN,KARAULI vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

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

197 Section 263-power of revision by commissioner AO completed assessment at NIL assessee involved in manufacture/trading of cable/copper wire- declared income from interest & commission as business income accepted by AO-CIT invoked see 263 and set-aside the order of AO directing him to consider the said income as income from other sources and not from business-whether

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

197 of 2012 whereby the High Court held that the\nTribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,07,00,000 of \"on money\" said to have\nbeen received with respect to subject land of the assessee holding that the question what was the\nprice of the land at the rel-evant time, was a pure question

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

SMT. VIMLA GUPTA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AJMER

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

disallowance of Rs. 1,36,197/- towards the interest paid of Rs. 1,21,197/- on loan taken by the assessee against FDR and further a difference of Rs. 15,000/- being the interest income and interest paid in respect of the loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- taken by the assessee from one Shri Kumar Agneet and loan

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

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

disallowance could be made u-s\n43B or section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the\nimpugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s\nState Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177-2011);\nCommissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B.\nIncome Tax Appeal No.189-2011), followed.\"\n4.2.4The

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

197/-\nLess: Provided till 31.03.2019\nRs. 64,36,70,352/-\nBalance provided during the year\nRs. 9,95,89,845/-\nIn this A.Y. provision was also made for mine closure cost of Jalipa mines at\nRs.5.77 crores.\n46. All the above amount was deposited in the escrow account maintained with\nPNB (PB 110-118). The AO disallowed the claim

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance confirmed by Ld. CIT (A) is set-aside and the AO is directed to allow the same. Ground No. 2 (A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21) is allowed for both the years. 28. Ground No. 3 (A.Y. 2018-19) The Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in upholding the order of AO in making addition