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

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

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

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

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

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

SCHOLAR'S EDUCATION TRUST OF INDIA,602-A, TRIMURTY DAVE APARTMENT, JAI SINGH HIGHWAY MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Bench: The Cit(A), The Power Exercised By Him U/S 263 For Disallowing The Donation Paid To Other Society Would Not Fall In The Ambit Of Section 263. 3. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Finding Given By Ld. Cit That Once Exemption U/S 11 Is Withdrawn, Not Disallowing The Scholar’S Education Trust Of India Vs. Cit(E)

section 263. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding given by Ld. CIT that once exemption u/s 11 is withdrawn, not disallowing the Scholar’S Education Trust of India vs. CIT(E) donation of Rs. 1,83,60,000/- in computing the total income has made the assessment order passed by AO as erroneous & prejudicial

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

Section 22, “Annual Letting value” which was available in this case, hence was rightly declared. The impugned disallowance kindly be deleted in full.” 9.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR strongly relied upon the findings recorded by the authorities below and justified the additions made and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed to uphold the addition/disallowance

KUMHER KRIYA VIKRYA SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, BHARATPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the amount of interest on the wrong footing that it is not income covered u/s 80P(2)(d) of IT Act whereas the appellant society had not claimed benefit under that section. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case the ld CIT (Appeals) has erred in not adjudicating the assessee‘s ground that ld AO made

DATA INGENIOUS GLOBAL LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

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

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

section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 which have already been added back by the assessee company while filing its return of income, thus the said disallowance have been made twice, which is against the basic canon of law and the Ld. CITIA) has erred in sustaining the same. 2 DATA INGENIOUS GLOBAL

M/S ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, KOTA

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

section 245D(3) dated 30.04.2019, it is pointed out that the scholarship payment is only a contingent and unascertained liability which has been disallowed in A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013–14 and confirmed by CIT(A) and therefore, the same should be disallowed for AY 2014-15 to 2017-18 also. It is contended before us that against the addition

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

section 147 r.w.s.\n144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act).\n2.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds: \n“1. 1. The impugned additions and disallowances made in the order u/s\n147 r.w.s 144 dated 31.03.2023 are bad in law and on facts of the\ncase, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence