M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the employees' contribution to provident fund while processing the return under s. 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the employees' contribution to provident fund while processing the return under s. 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the employees' contribution to provident fund while processing the return under s. 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

215 (RAJ) (text of the judgement annexed at paper book pg no. 37-42) At para12 of the judgement, while referring to the capital, trade credits/creditors and advances, mentioned that when the interest free funds of high magnitude were available the AO was not justified in disallowing interest. “12. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel

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

disallowance was already made in the original opinion of the\nld. AO, amounting to Rs.8,000.\nIt may, thus, please be appreciated your honour(s) that earlier an opinion of 1%\ndisallowance was made, while under proceedings u/s 147/148 the opinion has changed.\n1.2) Opinion while issuing Notice for rectification of mistake apparent on record u/s 154\ndated 21/11/2017

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)

disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission:- 1. It is submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

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)

disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission:- 1. It is submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

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)

disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission:- 1. It is submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, 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)

215 CTR (Bom) 150 : (2008) 3 DTR (Bom) 66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and NipsoPolyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION),WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN CRICKET ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Tribunal In The Interest Of Justice.

disallow expenditure and the exemption claimed by the assessee. Thus, the exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee was involved into a commercial activity. The ld. CIT(A) concurred the view of the Assessing Officer on the same basis. Before adverting to the rival contentions it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law. The section

SHIV VEGPRO PRIVATE LIMITED ,KOTA vs. PCIT-UDAIPUR , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs.1,38,95,995/- u/s\n40(a)(ia) of the Act (and the total reassessed income of Rs.\n5,97,80,77,790/-). However, this was followed by a notice u/s 263 with\nreference to the reassessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w. 147 of the\nAct dated 26.03.2015 on the ground that a further amount of sales

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)

section 263 of the Act, the twin condition is required to be satisfied which not fulfilled in this case. On the issue observed by the ld. PCIT the sufficient enquiry has already been done by the assessing officer and as regards the debatable issue the ld. AO has taken a plausible view of the matter and for that matter

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

disallowance at all was made u/s 40(a)(ia) in those years and also even in 2013 14 when the disallowance was made u/s 195, the AO did not term such commission payment as fees for technical services. Thus, there being no special reason and without bringing any change in facts & circumstances, the AO wrongly considered such commission payment