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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

disallowance of Rs. 4, 32, 88,800/- under Explanation 2 to section 37 of the Act ignoring that assessee has not claimed any expenditure on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) but claimed expenditure on Corporate Environment Responsibility (CER) which being a condition precedent for carrying out mining activity is allowable

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the ground no

244A of the Act, no arguments have been advanced by the ld. AR during the course of hearing and the levy and withdrawal of interest being consequential in nature, the said ground taken by the assessee is dismissed. M/s Allen Career Institute Vs. JCIT, Kota 4. Now coming to ground No. 2 where the assessee has challenged the disallowance

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

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

section 68 to the extent of Rs. 4,61,000/-. The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs. 4,61,000/-. 5. The assessee company craves its right to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds

MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, TONK

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

disallowance of Rs. 28,22,036/- made by Ld. AO u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, Shri Manoj Kumar Jain vs. ITO 1961 by alleging non-deduction of tax at source u/s 194H on the commission payment made by assessee as wholesaler of SIM cards / mobile phones etc to retailers / sub-dealers thereof without appreciating the nature

M/S GIE JEWELS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

disallowance. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, alter and/or withdraw any ground of appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 2. The assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of manufacturing, exports of silver and Gold jewellery as well as precious and semi precious stones. During the assessment proceedings completed

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee is general in nature which does not require any adjudication by us. Hence, the same

DAYA RAM POONIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

disallowed.’’ Conclusively, the AO observed that as per provisions of Section 199(1) of the Act, it has been established on record that the assessee has made excess claim in his return of income which is not allowable. According to the AO, the assessee is eligible for TDS in proportion to his share of rental income declared only which comes

HARBANS LAL SETHI,JAIPUR vs. ADDL. CIT, KOTA

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

244A which are consequential in nature and mandatory.. Thus, the appeal of the appellant assessee is partly allowed. ITA No. 497/JP/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 11.1 In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s 143(3) dated 30.11.2010 are bad in law and on facts

REGHUVEER SINGH TANWAR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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

244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest. The interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary, to the provision of law and acts, kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before