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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. • CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited (323 ITR 518)(P&H) • CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd (319 ITR 204

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

204 (Ahmedabad - Trib.) [PB : 5] laid down the ratio that where addition was made to income of assessee, being late payment of employees contribution of PF and ESI which was disallowed under section

LAKHANI SHOEE CO. PVT. LTD vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest can be made under the aforesaid section. Following cases support the above contention. 1. Redington (India) Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Co. Range-V, Chennai (2017) 77 taxmann.com 257 (Madras) 2. Ms. Amita Verma vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-13, New Delhi (2016) 71 Taxmann.com 91(Delhi-Trib.) 3. Joint Investment

SHRI ASHOK KUMAR MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed was deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars had been concealed—Minimum penalty 100% of tax evaded on account of concealed income was worked out and penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c)—CIT(A) upheld penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Appellant-assessee challenged imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, section 271(1)(c) empowered

SHRI RAM DAS MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed was deemed to represent income in respect of which particulars had been concealed—Minimum penalty 100% of tax evaded on account of concealed income was worked out and penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c)—CIT(A) upheld penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Appellant-assessee challenged imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, section 271(1)(c) empowered

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

204 (Ahmedabad - 1-4 Section 36(1) (va), read with section 143(1), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Employee's contribution (Intimation for making adjustment) Assessment year 2018-19 Whether where addition was made to income of assessee, being late payment of employees contribution of PF and ESI which was disallowed

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S JAINCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. SUDHA HOSPITAL & MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant A Y? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very ITA 671/JP/2017 ACIT Vs. Sudha Hospital 5 case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S TOLARAM SATYADEV AGRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, , KOTA vs. M/S NARESH KUMAR MANOJ KUMAR, , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act when no dividend income had been earned by the Assessee in the relevant AY? The Court referred to the decision of this Court in Maxopp Investment Ltd's, case (supra) and to the decision of the Special Bench of the ITAT in this very case i.e. Cheminvest

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

204 ITR 443 (Guj), their Lordships of Gujarat High Court have observed that where matter can be disposed of by the Tribunal on the basis of material already on record, a remand should not be resorted to. It is always necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and to save time." With this background, ground-wise submission is made as under

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 10AA of the Act. 4.6 So with those observations and relying on the order of the Malabar Industiral Limited Vs. CIT and CIT Vs. Paville Projects P. Ltd., she held that the assessment order passed u/s 153A dated 12/4/2021 passed by the AO is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

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

M/S. AJMER ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,AJMER vs. PR.CIT, AJMER

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

204 ITR 856/[1994] 72 Taxman 223 (Ker.), the Kerala High Court has held as under: '4. The effect of Section 80AB is that, for the purpose of computing the deduction under Section 80L, the amount of income of that nature as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act shall alone be deemed to be the amount