ALFAMAX PACKAGING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “36(1)(va) is reproduced:- "Any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds

VYONA LOGISTICS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “36(1)(va) is reproduced:- "Any sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which the provisions of the sub clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 apply, if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee's account in the relevant fund or funds

ELCON DRUGS & FORMULATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

244/- has been submitted. Therefore in view of provision to section 40(a)(ia) the disallowances of Rs. 2,36,244

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 216 DTR 191/ 288 Taxman 384 (Del.) (HC) No disallowance u/s 14A can be made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income. Insertion of Explanation of sec. 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 which

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)

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

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)

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

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)

disallowed the deductions holding that assessee is not carrying out banking business nor the income is derived from providing any credit facilities to its members. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed claim of deduction u/s 80P in respect of entire amount. The Ld. D/R submitted that assessee has earned income on account of interest on FDR with co-operative bank

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

section 147/143(3) dated 17.12.2018, and the merged order dated 25.02.2019 u/s 154 of IT Act, 1961 and direct a fresh assessment to be made in accordance with provisions of law.” 7. Feeling dissatisfied with the finding recorded by the ld. PCIT, Central, Jaipur in an order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred the present appeal challenging

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

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowance of Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) expenses, and claims for interest under Section 244A.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the appeals of the Revenue are fully dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Specifically, the grounds raised by the revenue regarding the mines closure plan were dismissed. The assessee's grounds concerning amortization/depreciation of surface

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

section. The question whether it was necessary or commercially expedient or not is a question that has to be decided from the point of view of the businessman and not by the subjective standard of reasonableness of the revenue. (d) Caldern Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs CIT (2004) 265 ITR 244 (Cal.) Interest on borrowing could not be disallowed

M/S GOLDEN TRIANGLE FORT & PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

244, therefore, the impugned disallowance deserves to be deleted.’’ ITA No. 278/JP/2018 – A.Y. 2011-12 ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 38,09,013/- by observing that the disallowance so made by the AO was a mistake apparent on record and holding

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

section 40(a)(i) of the Act on commission paid to non-resident commission agent on vague and irrelevant consideration. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1of the assessee wherein brief facts of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

disallowed total Rs.11,01,622/- i.e 1% of Rs.11,01,62,244/- and same is added back to the total income of the assessee.” 18. In light of above findings of the AO, we find that the discrepancies so observed by the Assessing Officer are sufficient enough to hold that the books of accounts so submitted by the assessee

SHRI BABOO LAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 1 & 3 are dismissed, ground no

disallowed the interest and remuneration paid to the partners of the assessee-firm. It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the finding of the lower authorities which should be confirmed. It was further submitted that the assessee has taken this ground by way of an additional ground before the ld. CIT(A) which was also not admitted

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S MANGLAM BUILD DEVELOPERS LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act. 2.1 Apropos Ground No. 1 to 3 of the Revenue, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ‘’4.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order