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)

viia) and is only applied to avoid the double deduction of provision allowed as expense in the earlier years. 14. However, in the present case it is humbly submitted that the amount of opening balance of the provision was not allowed as deduction in the year of creation of the said provision as the year under consideration was the first

HOLIDAY TRIANGLE TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance vide his order dated 05.12.2023. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted his written submission as under :- “ The assessee, during the year had sold 1013 equity shares of the company, and had received share premium

ACIT CIRCLE-SAWAI MADHOPUR, SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. M/S. HINDAUN SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. STATION ROAD, HINDAUN CITY, KARAULI, KARAULI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance made on account of Principal NPA of Rs. 32,42,000/-. 3. The ld. D/R has contended that since provisions of section 36(1)(viia) are not applicable in assessee’s case being a primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, then the order of the LD. CIT (A) is contrary to section 36(1)(viia

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

disallowance can be made in relation to that assessment year in exercise of powers under section 153A of the Act and the earlier assessment shall have to be reiterated. In this regard, this court is in complete agreement with the view adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Jai Steel (India) v. Asst. CIT (supra). Besides

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.]” 23. On perusal of the provisions reproduced above, it is evident that the deduction

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.]” 23. On perusal of the provisions reproduced above, it is evident that the deduction

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.]” 23. On perusal of the provisions reproduced above, it is evident that the deduction

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

viia) The relevant extract of Rule 6DD is reproduced as under: “6DD. No disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made and no payment shall be deemed to be the profits and gains of business of profession under sub-section (3A) of section 40A where a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

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

section 132 of the Income Tax act together. The documents related to dissolution of JV of both of them were found from the premises of both the persons. Both of them accepted that the transaction in question was not loan but an accommodation entry against the settlement of dispute. In fact, some of the amounts as per seized paper

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

24. Ground no. 2 is read as under:- “Deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,99,060/- (7.5% of 2,87,37,353/- + 2,57,47,000+ 11,35,03,112) made by disallowing claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viia) as this deduction is not for income from other sources.” 21 ITA Nos. 921/JP/2009, 41/JP/2010, 299/JP/2014 & 28/JP/2013. State Bank

M/S S B B J,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

24. Ground no. 2 is read as under:- “Deleting the addition of Rs. 1,25,99,060/- (7.5% of 2,87,37,353/- + 2,57,47,000+ 11,35,03,112) made by disallowing claim of deduction u/s 36(1) (viia) as this deduction is not for income from other sources.” 21 ITA Nos. 921/JP/2009, 41/JP/2010, 299/JP/2014 & 28/JP/2013. State Bank

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

24 /08/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 22-03-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

viia)(1)(B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76. CIT Vs Akshay Eminence Developers (P.) Ltd. 206 Taxman 99 (Kar.) In this case assessee company under took a project with regard to construction of a residential flats in Bangalore. It applied for approval of the said project before the Bangalore Development Authority

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

24. In this appeal, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in confirming the order of the Assessing officer with regard to disallowance of the following reserves: a) provision of bad and doubtful debts amounting to Rs. 13,33,808/- which is allowable to the extent

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

viia) could not be said to have been made in rectification of an error apparent in assessment order—Court had no reason to interfere with impugned order and, therefore, did not find that any substantial question of law was involved in this case—Application and appeal dismissed (vi) In the case of Harbans Lal Malhotra & Sons