CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under the provisions of section 14A of the Act. 15.12. Reliance is placed on the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of ACIT v. A.U. Financiers (India) Ltd (2009) 175 ITD 245

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. Thus, section 14A would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. 13 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. • PCIT Vs Oil Industry Development Board (2022) 115 CCH 245

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance by invoking s. 14A r/w rule 81. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the explanation inserted by Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022 to hold that it has retrospective application. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Oil Industry Development Board (2022) 115 CCH 245 has held that Explanation inserted with effect from

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. Thus, section 14A 7 M/S. ENTERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD VS PR. CIT, JAIPIR 2 would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year. PCIT Vs. Oil Industry Development Board (2022) 115 CCH 245

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 37(1), it is for the tax payer to prove not only the fact that the expenditure was actually made but also the fact that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively in connection with business purposes. Thus here also the burden placed on the assessee in terms of Imperial Chemical Industries (India) (P.) Ltd. case (supra) also

MAHADEV ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance to be triggered. 19. In the considered view of the Court, this will be a truncated reading of Section 14 A and Rule 8D particularly when Rule 8D (1) uses the expression ‘such previous year’. Further, it does not account for the concept of ‘real income’. It does not note that under Section 5 of the Act, the question

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act and with respect to the deduction of employee's contribution for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as evident from the notice dated 07.11.2019 and reply filed in response thereto on 10.12.2019. Thus, the Ld. AO has conducted the reasonable inquiry which a prudent officer is expected

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance which will cause injustice to the assessee. 4. It may also be noted that assessee acquired the land as capital asset and not as stock in trade. The only purpose for which the land is acquired is to run a petrol pump on it. Thereafter, after a gap of around 12 years, assessee converted the said land for residential

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)

disallowance. 4.3 On further examination of the records, she also noticed that shares of Aavas Financers Limited were sold during the year under consideration and a capital gain of Rs. 636.01crores was declared. During the year, entire holding of 3,75,83,334 equity shares and 9,00,000 bonus shares (out of 52,41,149 allotted) of Aavas

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallowed the said amount U/s 40(a)(i)on the ground that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source as required U/s 195(1) of the Act. The AO has given much emphasis to explanation-II to Section 195(1) of the Act. The AO also held that the payment in question is Fee for Technical Services

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

GEMCO INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed with no order as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 143(3) was completed by making disallowance of bogus purchases debited in P & L account of Rs. 2,63,245

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Section 40(a)(ia) is also attracted wherever TDS on payment of 7 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur commission to a non-resident has not been made at appropriate rates. These provisions bar deduction of any payment on account of commission [fee for technical services] made to a non-resident, without making

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)

disallowed the said amount U/s. 40(a) (i) on the ground that the assessee has not deducted the tax at source as required U/s. 195(1) of the Act. The AO has given much emphasis to explanation-II to Section 195(1) of the Act. The AO also held that the payment in question is Fee for Technical Services

SH. SHASHANK PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :- 2 Sh. Shashank Poddar, Jaipur. “1.That the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of interest expenses of Rs.26,60,245

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)

245 to 248 and 251 to 252 of paper book. 14.2 In view of the above, there remains no ambiguity that amount of Rs. 5 crore each received from Shri Ramesh Thakor and Shri Vinod Sharma represent repayment of advances given by the assessee in the month of February 2009. Therefore the provision of section 68 will not be applicable

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the Act. Section 80P(4) reads as under:- (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank.” As per section 80P(4), a cooperative society engaged