CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

section 148, the assessee filed return of income on 9.8.2017 in which he correctly claimed deduction of Rs 94,32,201/- u/s 54 of Income Tax Act (Copy at Paper book page no 16 to 18) On this return the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and an order was passed in which the claim of the assessee was disallowed

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia) which in clear terms provides that disallowance u/s ,40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee has not been treated as an `assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. And this provision though inserted later was only clarificatory in nature, and applies to the year under appeal also Therefore

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

section 40(a)(ia) which in clear terms provides that disallowance u/s ,40(a)(ia) cannot be made if the assessee has not been treated as an `assessee in default' u/s 201(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. And this provision though inserted later was only clarificatory in nature, and applies to the year under appeal also Therefore

SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

201(1) for the year under consideration, therefore no disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) could be made. It is submitted that both the provisos to section 40(a)(ia) were inserted to avoid undue hardship to the assessee and are beneficial provisions, thus have to be interpreted liberally and disallowance made deserves to be deleted. 2. That the appellant craves

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

Section 37 of the Act. The case laws cited by the ld.AR of the assessee are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that disallowance/ addition made by the AO on account of payment of interest on delayed deposit of TDS is penal in nature. The ld.AR

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)

201-208 it was held that:- “19. Here, on facts, the Tribunal noted that the AO only discussed the provisions of section 14A(l) but has not justified how the expenditure the Assessee incurred during the relevant year related to the income not forming part of its total income. The AO, according to the Tribunal, straightaway applied Rule 8D. Indeed

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

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

3 & 3.1 27,411/- Not pressed Trading Addition 2015-16 5 to 6.1 98,02,903/- - With this background, issue-wise submission is made as under: Disallowance u/s 43B: Facts pertaining to this issue are that assessee maintains separate account for VAT/CST and does not route the same through profit & loss account. Disallowance u/s 43B was made

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

3 & 3.1 27,411/- Not pressed Trading Addition 2015-16 5 to 6.1 98,02,903/- - With this background, issue-wise submission is made as under: Disallowance u/s 43B: Facts pertaining to this issue are that assessee maintains separate account for VAT/CST and does not route the same through profit & loss account. Disallowance u/s 43B was made

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

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

3 & 3.1 27,411/- Not pressed Trading Addition 2015-16 5 to 6.1 98,02,903/- - With this background, issue-wise submission is made as under: Disallowance u/s 43B: Facts pertaining to this issue are that assessee maintains separate account for VAT/CST and does not route the same through profit & loss account. Disallowance u/s 43B was made

ABHISHEK KHANDELWAL,AJMER vs. ITO WD-2(2), AJMER

201 ITR 406 held that\nIt is difficult to catalogue the various types of defects in the account books of an\nassessee which may render rejection of account books on the ground that the\naccounts are not complete or correct from which the correct profit cannot be\ndeduced\n3.14 In the instant case, the detailed explanations given

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3,65,771 is being disallowed considering the reason, as stated above. (Disallowance of depreciation and interest claimed on vehicles of Rs. 5,32,219/-)” On this aspect, the ld. CIT(A) at page 6 para 5.2 held as under: “5.2.1 Ground No. 1: Disallowance of depreciation and interest on vehicles. The Assessing officer noted that the appellant had claimed

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)

section (6) to provide that, with effect from 1-4-2012, the provisions of sub-section shall cease to have effect. Accordingly, a SEZ developer or any entrepreneur carrying on business in an SEZ unit (being a company) would be liable to pay MAT on the profits arising from the development of SEZ or the business carried

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

3 SCC 346] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201] (hereinafter referred to as “Kesoram Industries case [State of W.B. v. Kesoram Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201]”, for brevity). In the later decision, a Bench of five Judges, after citing the above passage from Justice G.P. Singh

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the deduction is a matter of discussion and legal matter which cannot be rectified in order u/s 154. Thus it is debatable issue hence cannot be covered u/s 154 of I.T. Act, 1961. Section 154, scope of.-Section 154 confers jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer carry out rectification in respect of apparent mistakes which are self-evident from

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

3 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH VS ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR the Act. The relevant narration as made by the AO in para 2.4 of the assessment order is as under:- ‘’2.4 Thus, total disallowance u/s 14A is worked out to Rs.78,311/- and the same is treated as expenditure incurred in relation to tax free investment. Hence, the amount