ACIT, KOTA vs. VASTUVEDIK COLONIZERS & DEVLOPERS PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, ground no. (ii) of the revenue is dismissed and ground no

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court Was Disallowance

section 194J are applicable in respect of the said payment. Hence, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. 4.1. The second disallowance was made by the AO in respect of Interest payment to M/s. Tata Motor Finance. The ld. A/R of the assessee has submitted that the recipient has considered the said amount in its total income and paid

SHRI MADHOPUR KRAYA VIKRAYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

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)

disallowing deduction of Rs. 4,71,247/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 22,398/- under section 36(i)(va) of the Income Tax Act. 4. That the appellant craves

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 30.08.2017 which got served upon the assessee through registered post on 31.08.2017. In compliance with the notice the assessee filed the return of income on 04.09.2017 declaring the same income as it was filed and assessed as such. The reasons recorded were as requested provided to the assessee, the assessee

SHRI YOGENDRA KHANDELWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 4

234 while filing his return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was given a specific show-cause by the Assessing officer as to why such commission payment made to his wife shouldn’t be treated as bogus commission. Further, the AO has invoked the provisions of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. The onus

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) provides for certain disallowances in certain cases notwithstanding that those amounts are generally allowed under the general section. The computation u/s.29 has to be made u/s.145 on the basis of books of account regularly maintained by the assessee which the Assessing Officer did by estimating the profit at 5% of the sales. The learned Counsel

GCK STOCK PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed\nOrder pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2025

234 and initiating penalty under section 271[1][c]\n4) In the facts and the circumstances of law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred\nin dismissing appeal By totally overlooking judgment in the case of Rajeev Bansal by SC and\nnot deciding the issue of time barred case of the Appellant .\"\n3.\nSuccinctly, the fact as culled

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 269SS & 269T of the IT Act. Levied tax and charged interest\nu/s 234 B & 234 C as per separate tax calculation sheet forming part of this order.\nIssue ITNS-150 forming part of this order, Notice of Demand, Challan.\nAs is evident, on the one hand Id. AO did not believe that rough cash book\nis proper books

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

section 13 of the Act. At the same time, assessee was also asked to furnish details of all persons to whom the assesseehad paid salary exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-; to furnish information regarding qualification of such persons and the duties assigned to them. Copy of their appointment letter was also sought for. 23. Assessee submitted reply dated

M/S JYOTI VIDYAPEETH TRUST,143, GOMEZ DEFENCE COLONY, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. CIRCLE (EXEMPTION), , JAIPUR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

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

section 13 of the Act. At the same time, assessee was also asked to furnish details of all persons to whom the assesseehad paid salary exceeding Rs. 5,00,000/-; to furnish information regarding qualification of such persons and the duties assigned to them. Copy of their appointment letter was also sought for. 23. Assessee submitted reply dated

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance as revenue expenditure, then in the given case the conditions of Section 35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance as revenue expenditure, then in the given case the conditions of Section 35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance as revenue expenditure, then in the given case the conditions of Section 35D are fully satisfied and the appellant is entitled to claim 1/5th of the expenses incurred as revenue. 7. That the ld. Assessing Officer has further erred in calculating the interest payable under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Rs. 3,86,051/- instead

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

234 Taxman 435 where assessee claimed deduction u/s 80-IB with respect to housing project consisting of 43 units which was disallowed on ground that Building Use (BU) permission and completion certificate was granted only with respect to 20 units within a period of four years from date of approval of project by local authority and not with respect

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

disallowed by the Id. AO is\nbeing totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence\nthe same may kindly allowed and the addition may kindly be deleted in full.\n3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in\ncharging interest u/s 234

INSTITUTE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ITI JHALAWAR ,JHALAWAR vs. ITO WARD JHALAWAR, JHALAWAR

The appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

disallowed by the Id. AO is\nbeing totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence\nthe same may kindly allowed and the addition may kindly be deleted in full.\n3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in\ncharging interest u/s 234

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