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

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

199 (Del Trib.) RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR These cases held that claiming CSR deduction in violation of the statute justifies penalty under Section 271(1)(c), particularly when no supporting justification exists. 4. Section 14A Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

199 Taxman 255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111 Some of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:- "It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations provided

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

199 Taxman 255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259 (Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-2011]\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement are as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the Act is further fortified from the various Explanations

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

disallowance of expenditure was set aside to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication. In the meantime, the AO initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty of Rs. 53,78,285/-, Rs. 1,31,42,199

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

disallowance of expenditure was set aside to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication. In the meantime, the AO initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty of Rs. 53,78,285/-, Rs. 1,31,42,199

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND SHARMA, C-42, GOKUL PATH VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ao On The Charge Of Concealment Of Income.

disallowance of expenditure was set aside to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication. In the meantime, the AO initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and levied the penalty of Rs. 53,78,285/-, Rs. 1,31,42,199

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

199 Taxman 255 (Delhi) (Mag.)/[2011] 335 ITR 259\n(Delhi)/[2011] 244 CTR 51 (Delhi)[08-04-20111\nSome of the arguments made on behalf of the assesse as noted in the judgement\nare as under:-\n\"It was also argued that the legislative intent in connection with section 271 of the\nAct is further fortified from the various

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing deductions, that the respondent's liabilities towards these creditors have ceased in accordance with the law or have been formally waived by the creditors. In the instant case, the said factum is totally missing. 9. That the ld. Lower authorities failed to acknowledge and take into account the fact that the assessee appellant provided confirmation of accounts from

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowed in the year in which it was claimed, or could have been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act in relevant assessment years, but the same cannot be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act, in as much as if the liability itself is not genuine, the question

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)

section 32(1) would mean double deduction, which is not permissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India [1993] 199 ITR 43/[1992] 65 Taxman 420. The depreciation being notional expenditure will not fall under the expression 'actually applied' as held by the Apex Court in the case

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

1)(va) of the Act, which are unforeseen, and is also not applicable for the year under consideration, the plausible view taken by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Besides this the plausible view taken by the Ld. AO with respect to the disallowance made by the Appellant

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

section 195 about 'sum chargeable' under provisions of Act - Held, yes [Para 20] [In favour of assessee]" 5.1.3 Also kindly refer Gujarat Reclaim & Rubber Products Ltd. (2015) 94 CCH 0148 (Mum) (DPB 1-7), CIT, Coimbatore Vs. Kikani Exports(p) Ltd. (2014) 49 66taxmann.com601(Madras) (DPB- 108-113) and CIT, Chennai Vs. Farida Leather Company (2016) 238 Taxman 473/66taxmann.com321 (Madras

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

199 Taxman 75 (Uttaranchal), pertained to Writ Petition filed challenging the Vires of the Section 115JB. The Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Hon’ble Courts in those case, did not examined the section 115JB(5), which otherwise also cannot be done in case of Writ Petition challenging the vires of the section itself. Hence it is humbly submitted that the aforesaid

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 14A read with rule 8D(2), Commissioner having failed to make out that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

1), Kannur[2012] 20 Taxmann.com 667 (Coch) 14. CBDT Instruction No. 17/2008 dated 26-11-2008 (F.No. 228/3/3008 – ITA-III) 15. CIT vs HCL Comnet Sytesm Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 118 SC 16. Rule of Income Tax Rules, 1962 17. CBDT Circular No.9/2006 dated 10-10-2006 18. Zenith Processing Mills Ltd. vs CIT- MANU/GJ/0049/1955 19.CBDT Circular No. 768 dated

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

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

1) nowhere empowers AO to disallow expenditure in above said manner and expenses had been incurred wholly and exclusively for purpose of business, disallowance of said sum should be deleted. DCIT Vs. ABC Bearing Ltd. (2017) 157 DTR 242 (Mum.) (Trib.) Assessee having produced complete details of expenditure, adhoc disallowance by AO at 25 per cent as reduced