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)

199 (PB page 151-163). In the case it was held that where Assessing Officer during course of original assessment verified all transactions of purchase/sales/stock of shares in case of assessee and made disallowance under section

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

199 (Del\nTrib.)\n\n29\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\n\nThese cases held that claiming CSR deduction in violation of the statute\njustifies penalty under Section 271(1)(c), particularly when no supporting\njustification exists.\n\n4. Section 14A Disallowance

TRUWORTH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 14A read with rule 8D would not be applicable if there was no exempt income earned by the assessee during the year. The Delhi ITAT in case of Dy. CIT Vs. Futurz Next Services Ltd. (2022) 139 taxmann.com 199 held that where assessee had not received any exempt/dividend income during the year disallowance

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Section 199(1) of I.T. Act, TDS claim is allowable in proportion to income shown by you only. Thus the allowable TDS credit to you will be Rs. 12,027/- and the balance TDS claimed by you at Rs. 2,16,481/- is proposed to be disallowed

DULHE RAM MEENA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: SHRIGAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

199 read with section 37BA of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to allow credit of Rs. 2,17,777/-. So far as receipt of rent by the appellant is concerned, Learned CIT(A) observed that the appellant had not furnished conclusive proof that he was owner of land situated at Gram: Ratanpura, Patwar Kshetra, Tehsil: Bssi, Zira: Jaipur; that

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails. 5. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails. 5. In the result, the appeal is "Dismissed

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN AVAS VIKAS & INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing."

disallowed the claim of TDS credit in question. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has considered and decided this issue in para 2.3 as under:- “2.3 I have perused the facts of the case, the assessment order and the records of the appellant. This issue arose in the earlier years also and was decided by the Honble ITAT both

MARVEL SUPPORT CONSULTANCY SERVICES,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRLCE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed per ground

section 199 Sh. Marvel Support Consultancy Services, Jaipur vs. ACIT/DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur read with Rule 37BA even though payers had deducted TDS in financial year relevant to AY 2018-19. In view of above, AO be directed to allow the credit of TDS of Rs.8,52,736/- not allowed by him. Departmental Appeal Only Ground Whether under the facts

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

199 (Jp. ITAT) Where Assessing Officer after rejecting assessee's books of account, applies gross profit rate or net profit rate, no further disallowance can be made under section

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

199 (Jp. ITAT) Where Assessing Officer after rejecting assessee's books of account, applies gross profit rate or net profit rate, no further disallowance can be made under section

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

199 ITR 579 The ld. AR has further submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08 on this very issue the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2011 has set aside the issue to AO with the directions that when the litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock such cannot be valued at cost price. Thus, he has contended that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

199 ITR 579 The ld. AR has further submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08 on this very issue the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2011 has set aside the issue to AO with the directions that when the litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock such cannot be valued at cost price. Thus, he has contended that

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

199 ITR 579 The ld. AR has further submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08 on this very issue the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2011 has set aside the issue to AO with the directions that when the litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock such cannot be valued at cost price. Thus, he has contended that

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

199 ITR 579 The ld. AR has further submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08 on this very issue the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2011 has set aside the issue to AO with the directions that when the litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock such cannot be valued at cost price. Thus, he has contended that

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORTATION LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

199 ITR 579 The ld. AR has further submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08 on this very issue the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2011 has set aside the issue to AO with the directions that when the litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock such cannot be valued at cost price. Thus, he has contended that

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and appeals of the Revenues are dismissed

199 ITR 579 The ld. AR has further submitted that for the A.Y. 2007-08 on this very issue the Tribunal vide order dated 24.06.2011 has set aside the issue to AO with the directions that when the litigation and encroachment will affect the valuation of the stock such cannot be valued at cost price. Thus, he has contended that