MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

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)

209/- by making disallowance u/s 14A of I.T. Act. 1961 amounting to Rs. 10,53,684/- by holding that assessee company has made investment in shares of unlisted companies of Rs. 1,49,29,900/- from which either exempt income is generated or no income is generated and so provision of section

AJEET SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

disallowance because of the delay in deposit of contribution and\nthose tax payers who have been processed and intimated under section\n143(1) would go scot-free even if there is delay in deposit of\ncontribution and even if they do not deposit the contribution. Thus it\nis opined that the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court is equally\napplicable

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S MAYUR LEATHER PRODUCTS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the

disallowance of Rs. 8,23,209/- made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D, was not in contravention to the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S MAYUR LEATHER PRODUCTS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and cross objections of the

disallowance of Rs. 8,23,209/- made u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D, was not in contravention to the provisions of section

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

disallowed\nAmount for which reason should have been recorded in the\nsatisfaction note\nAmount\nRs.8,00,000\nRs.8,000\nRs.7,92,000\nThus, it is clear that the learned AO went on to re-open the case, merely on the\nobservation and direction of the Audit Party, in a mechanical manner and without\nindependent application of his own mind, which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

209 ITR 174.) Thus the simply bills has been approved in the year under consideration cannot be said to be expense crystallized during the year. The department has filed appeals on such issues in other cases. The issue has not attained finality. Hence, claim of prior period expenses of Rs. 40594/- is disallowed and added to the total income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

209 ITR 174.) Thus the simply bills has been approved in the year under consideration cannot be said to be expense crystallized during the year. The department has filed appeals on such issues in other cases. The issue has not attained finality. Hence, claim of prior period expenses of Rs. 40594/- is disallowed and added to the total income

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

209 ITR 174.) Thus the simply bills has been approved in the year under consideration cannot be said to be expense crystallized during the year. The department has filed appeals on such issues in other cases. The issue has not attained finality. Hence, claim of prior period expenses of Rs. 40594/- is disallowed and added to the total income

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

VAIBHAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 139 of the Act. In the case of the appellant, it is noticed that Form 67 has been filed by the appellant after the due date of filing the return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 and even after processing u/s 143(1) of the Act 26.10.2022. Infact it is seen that Form 67 has been filed only

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

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallow any payment-Liability for deduction of TDS u/s. 195, arises for payment made to a non resident, not being a company or to foreign company any interest or royalty-Any other sum was chargeable under provisions of IT Act and it was finding of fact by lower authorities that all three foreign agents were not assessed

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste Management System.\n78. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing of Pozzolana Portland Cement (PPC) and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Apart from using gypsum and clinker as raw materials in the cement production, respondent also

RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

disallowance, on procedural ground, or not. It is observed that the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) - 6, Mumbairelied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)Principal Commissioner of Income-taxvs.Wipro Ltd.and [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 (SC)Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbaivs.Dilip Kumar & Company while dismissing the claim