ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance, U/S 194C and 40(a)(ia) would get attracted. On this aspect, as indicated above a reading of provisions of Section 194C (6), prior to the amendment of by Finance Act, 2015 (w.e.f. 1- 06-2015), makes it clear that that during the relevant Assessment year, if the sub- contractors have supplied their PAN to the person making payments

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA,\n80-IA, 80-1AB, 80-1B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section 80-IE if the\nreturn is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139, or\n(vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A\nor Form 16 which has not been

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance. The assesseemust succeed for\nthis reason as well.\"\n9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate\nbench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate\nbench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be\npertinent

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)

disallowance of the claim of the assessee which was held by the different Hon’ble High Courts on different decisions but there is no change in the law that intimation issued u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act has to make adjustment for which opportunity as provided in the Act has to be granted to the assessee. He further submitted

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)

23 Career Point Limited, Kota. The revenue's appeal therefore, requires no further entertainment and hence dismissed.” 2.10 No disallowance u/s 14A can be made where there is no exempt income from the impugned investments. Assessee’s own funds i.e. equity and reserves amount to Rs. 38,508.89 Lacs is more than the value of current and non-current investments

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

section 14A r.w.r.8D and thereby Rs. 23,20,009/- was disallowed u/s 14A of the IT Act and added back

SOHAN LAL TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

Section 14A of the Act when the rule of apportionment of expenditure is applicable. Even otherwise irrespective of having held that the purpose of investment is not relevant for disallowance U/s 14A of the Act and apportionment of the expenditure, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of interest is not falling in the category of indirect expenditure

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

Section 14A of the Act when the rule of apportionment of expenditure is applicable. Even otherwise irrespective of having held that the purpose of investment is not relevant for disallowance U/s 14A of the Act and apportionment of the expenditure, the expenditure incurred by the assessee on account of interest is not falling in the category of indirect expenditure

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23,306\n= 45,13,413 + 13,05,279 (1% of annual average of opening and\nclosing balances of total investment)\n= 58,18,6692/-\nThus, the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 58,18,692/- as proposed to\nbe made by Id. PCIT by apportioning interest in the ratio of Total\nInvestments to Total Assets is not correct.\nAlso

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , 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)

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in Section 143(1)(a). To this effect, the detailed written submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is reproduced as under:- GROUND NO. 1A: ADDITION MADE WITHOUT AFFORDING ANYOPPORTUNITY AS MANDATED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 143(1)(a). 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. The adjustment made while processing the return

GANESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BEGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

23,90,699/- 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 to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

DURGA SINGH RATHORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(1) JAIPUR / CPC BENGALURU, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed

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)

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to Section 43B; the memorandum

SH. VIRENDRA KUMAR AHUJA,B-85, 22 GODAM INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

23. Thus, we are of the view that where the PF and/or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after the due date under respective Act but before filing of the return of income under Section 139(1), cannot be disallowed