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)

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return It may be noted that under sub-clause (iv) the adjustment can only be made in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

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)

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return It may be noted that under sub-clause (iv) the adjustment can only be made in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

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)

section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return It may be noted that under sub-clause (iv) the adjustment can only be made in respect of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

BIHANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(1), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.19/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/s. Bihani Constructions (P) Ltd. 64/167, Heera Path, VT Road Mansarovar, Jaipur 302 020 cuke Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAECB 8359 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri R.S. Poonia, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh

disallowed by the AO, CPC amounting to Rs.9,69,221/- u/s 36(1)(va )of the Act. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- ‘’Page 6” The scope of the Section

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed the amount of Rs 9,69,221/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the ground that payments of employees contribution towards Employee’s Provident Fund had not been made on or before the due date by the employer as per respective Act which has been confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). It is not imperative to repeat

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

221 TT (Coch followed......." (vii) The disallowance has rightly been made on the basis of the relevant law viz-a vir the due dates of depositing of the amounts which are held by the employer, the appellant in trust since these are the contributions of the employees and not the share of the contribution to be made by the employer

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

221 TT (Coch followed......." (vii) The disallowance has rightly been made on the basis of the relevant law viz-a vir the due dates of depositing of the amounts which are held by the employer, the appellant in trust since these are the contributions of the employees and not the share of the contribution to be made by the employer

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS and claimed said interest as deduction - Assessing\nOfficer disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether since

SHREE HARI MAHAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

221/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated Shree Hari Mahal vs. CIT(A) 03.09.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 7,71,423/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

disallowance of expenditure of Finance Cost, and issue pertaining to the deduction of employee’s contribution for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, which remained verified during scrutiny assessment and are further supported from various judicial precedents. 12. The above fact is supported from the captioned notice itself wherein no basis/finding are provided in the captioned

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

1) dated 21/03/2022 (correct date is 21/02/2022) (PB Page 96-105), wherein detail of transaction executed by assessee company through broker M/s SMC Global Securities Limited were provided. 8. Sir, one fails to understand that how detail of transaction which in fact executed by assessee can held as supporting evidence for allegation without any material based on which

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

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

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

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

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

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

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

Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va): Not pressed. Trading Addition in A.Y. 2015-16: Brief facts pertaining to the grounds of appeal are that the assessee is a private limited company and a survey action u/s 133A was carried out at its factory premises on 17.12.2014. During the course of survey, stock verification was done by survey team

DIESH KUMAR GOYAL,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOTA, KOTA

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

disallowance. Such an\naddition made on the basis of guess work cannot be subject matter of penalty for\nconcealment of income. Penalty being a quasi-criminal proceeding there is a duty\ncast on the Assessing Officer to establish the guilt of the assessee in concealing\nthe income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.\n3.3 In the case of Commissioner