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

section 14A will\nalso apply on the shares held as stock in trade. Thus simply because disallowance\nis confirmed in appeal does not mean that the assesse has concealed the particulars\nof income. All the facts relating to the investment in shares and exempt income\nearned therefrom are duly shown in the financial statement which was not found\nincorrect

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to Pratap Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.Vs. ADIT & Ors. appeals the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan

DANISH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: The Hearing.”

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the return of income. The appellant has referred to the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd 392 ITR 2 and similar other decisions

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

disallowance of Rs.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallowance made by the Assessing officer by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) is hereby directed to be deleted. 18. Now, coming to ITA No. 199/JP/19 for AY 2015-16, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are exactly identical to facts and circumstances of the case in ITA No. 1494/JP/2018, therefore

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallowance made by the Assessing officer by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(i) is hereby directed to be deleted. 18. Now, coming to ITA No. 199/JP/19 for AY 2015-16, both the parties fairly submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are exactly identical to facts and circumstances of the case in ITA No. 1494/JP/2018, therefore

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

198 ITR 297/ 64 Taxman 442, no such proposition canvassed by the assessee was laid down. Secondly section 147 of the Income-tax Act has undergone various changes and the provision applicable for relevant assessment years is extracted hereunder for easy reference: "147. Income escaping assessment-If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable

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

disallowed u/s 40(A)(3), 40(a)(ia) etc.) found recorded in the books of accounts named as “Jadavji” Total Addition 129351691 102524909 26773564 Further, ld CIT(A) directed that the seized cash lying in PD account be adjusted against self assessment tax liability and interest u/s 234B be computed accordingly. 4.1 Now we take up the grounds of appeal

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

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)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

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)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

SHYAM APPARELS P.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

198- 205]: Second proviso – Assessment year 2006-07 – Whether insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 01.04.2013 is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005, being date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 – Held, yes. Since, the second proviso

ITO, JAIPUR vs. SHYAM APPARELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

198- 205]: Second proviso – Assessment year 2006-07 – Whether insertion of second proviso to section 40(a)(ia) with effect from 01.04.2013 is declaratory and curative in nature and it has retrospective effect from 01.04.2005, being date from which sub-clause (ia) of section 40(a) was inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 – Held, yes. Since, the second proviso

GENUS INNOVATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 43B which provides that the claim to be allowed only on the payment and not on accrual basis. Though the said disallowance by the AO has been upheld by this Tribunal, however, it is clear from the decision of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings that the Tribunal has followed the decision of Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in case