M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallowed if they are made in cash in the sums exceeding the amount specified under section 40A(3). We have earlier observed that rule 6DD has to be read along with section 40A(3). The rule also contemplates payments made for stock-in-trade and raw materials. This rule is in accordance with the terms of section

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

237 CTR 404 (Kerala) (FB)[21-12-2010] held as under- "3. In the first place we notice that in the decision of the Supreme Court relied on by the Tribunal, that is, in CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297/ 64 Taxman 442, no such proposition canvassed by the assessee was laid down. Secondly section

WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

237/- to the Government Account within the due date prescribed under the said Acts. Rejecting the explanation of the assessee that such amount has been deposited before the due date of filing of the return, the AO held that the above amounts totaling to Rs. 14,88,536/- is forming part of the income of the assessee under section

ITO, JAIPUR vs. OM PRAKASH DANGAYACH, JAIPUR

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

237/- and the assessee has not deducted tax as per section 194A of the Act thereby he made disallowance of expenditure

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

section 41(1) is not applicable. 5.3 Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the following cases:- CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC), CIT Vs. Mogul Line Ltd. 46 ITR 590 (Bom), Kedarnath Jute Manuf. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC), CIT Vs. Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate Ltd. 284 ITR 310 (Karnataka)(HC) 5.4 Ld. Counsel

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

section 41(1) is not applicable. 5.3 Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the following cases:- CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC), CIT Vs. Mogul Line Ltd. 46 ITR 590 (Bom), Kedarnath Jute Manuf. Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 ITR 363 (SC), CIT Vs. Industrial Credit & Development Syndicate Ltd. 284 ITR 310 (Karnataka)(HC) 5.4 Ld. Counsel

M/S MITTAL PHARMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

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

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961 are attracted and thus, made disallowance of Rs. 4,63,951/- (Rs. 4,49,584/- for interest and Rs. 14,367/- for expense) as per Rule 8D. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance made by the AO but held that as on 31.03.2012, the assessee had Rs.22,12,577/- as interest

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

disallowing exemption u/s 11(2) and 11(1)(a) of the income Tax Act. Further, addition of Rs. 5,278/- is made on account of interest on Income Tax Refund. The amount of Rs. 33,50,772/- (33,45,494/- + 5,278/-) must have been part of amount received of Rs. 22,37,641/- reflected as per 26AS. Therefore, addition

SWASTIK UDYOG,JAIPUR vs. ITO, TONK

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

237/-, disallowance of donation of Rs. 5,000/- and disallowance of sales tax demand of Rs. 420/-. During the course of 5 M/s. Swastik Udyog, vs. ITO, Ward- Tonk . assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee firm derives income from manufacturing and trading of edible oils. The AO further noticed that the assessee has not maintained the books

RAJASTHAN RAJYA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

237 ITR 570 (SC) The Supreme Court held that where the question of law was debatable, penalty cannot be imposed. In the light of the above arguments and case laws, it is respectfully submitted that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is not justified and should be deleted. The assessee has not concealed any income or furnished inaccurate

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened by ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

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 can be made u/s 40(a)/(la) of the Income Tax Act." 4. Sec. 195 not applicable: 4.1 From the Crux of the various judicial pronouncements and the guidance provided (cited later in this w/s), it is clear that the only test of applying Sec.195 is whether the subjected payment is a sum chargeable under the provisions of this

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 14A of the Act, the case of the department is that the assessee was found to have made investments of Rs. 5, 73, 99, 90/- in equities, but, the assessee, in its Profit and Loss Account, debited expenses by way of interest, to the tune of Rs. 17, 63, 22,237/-. The Assessing Officer, while dealing with the issue

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow Rs. 5,00,000/- out of total expenses of Rs. 11,86,847/- under this head and added in the total income of the assessee. Based on the above observation ld. AO completed the assessment proceeding as per provision of section 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, assessee preferred

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA BANKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue in ITA No

Disallowance of long-term capital gains exemption of Rs.40,15,061.29 by\ntreating the sale of listed equity shares as a bogus transaction; and\nb. Addition of Rs.2,05,753 (being 5% of Rs.40,15,061.29) towards alleged\nundisclosed expenditure under Section 69C on account of commission\npurportedly paid to obtain such capital gains.\nAggrieved by the assessment order