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)

25,69,782 7,26,90,293 69,34,83,925 It was also submitted that no exempt income has been earned during the assessment year under appeal so as to attract any disallowance under section

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

25. Next ground of disallowance stated by the learned CIT is that Sec. 194C(6) and 194C(7) are to be read together, and if after obtaining PAN from the Transporters, the requisite particulars so obtained from the Transporters are not furnished to the prescribed Authority as provided U/S 194C(7), deduction and for that matter disallowance, U/S 194C

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been held as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The AO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

disallowed purchase of Rs.\n43,33,606/- being 25% of alleged purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- found to be\nunverifiable by invoking provisions of section

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made by ld. AO for Rs. 1,25,430/- being the amount collected from employees towards contribution to welfare funds but deposited later than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made by ld. AO for Rs. 1,25,430/- being the amount collected from employees towards contribution to welfare funds but deposited later than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section

M/S. G.B.IMPEX,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of 25% out of alleged unverifiable purchases received from as many as 12 parties, Here it is relevant to discuss assessee's case pertaining to AY 2008-09, wherein the AO after invoking provision of section

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, 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. We also draw strength from the decision of the Coordinate Bench ITAT Delhi in ITA No. 1635/Del/2021 (A.Y. 2019-20 dated 25-11-2022) wherein the Bench on the similar issue has held as under:- ‘’6. From the above, we find that the disallowance

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

Disallowance under section 14A, read with rule 8D is to be in relation to income which does not form part of total income and this can be done only by taking into consideration investment which has given rise to this income which does not form part of total income. Accordingly, in assessee’s case explanation to Section 14A does

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been\nheld as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The\nAO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of\nRs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and\nITAT holding that section

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

25% of purchases where are held as non-genuine and disallowed by the Assessing officer relates to the same business activity of manufacture and export in respect of which assessee is held eligible for deduction under section

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 24,37,500/- incurred in respect of interest and 25 Agrasen Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. administrative expenses under Section

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of expenditure\non account of section 14A r.w. rule 8D can never exceed the exempt\nincome earned d uring the year and hence the proceedings so initiated\nby the Ld. PCIT deserves to ceased.”\n6.\nTo support the contention so raised in the written submission\nreliance was placed on the following evidence / records :\nS. No.\nPARTICULARS\nPAGE

TRUWORTH INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

25-01-2023 for the assessment year 2015-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld CIT (A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in upholding the application of provision of sec. 14A of the IT Act. 1961 r/w rule

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

disallowing 25% of the purchase price. Herein, as rightly held by the authorities below, the two suppliers named above, were not produced or examined by the assessee before the Assessing Officer to substantiate the claim of subject-purchases, despite opportunities, and even no material was produced before Learned CIT(A) to substantiate said claim. 11 M/s K L Tambi

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of such payments is too harsh a punishment for delayed payments. Therefore, we recommend that the deduction for delayed payment of statutory liability relating to labour should be allowed in the year of payment like delayed taxes and interest." Based on the report, the Union introduced amendments to the IT Act, including an amendment to Section 43B; the memorandum

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

disallowance. 10. Additional Legal Ground: (Before Hon'ble ITAT) The learned AO has erred in wrongly invoking the amended provisions of section 115BBE in 3 Rays Power Experts Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT respect of addition of Rs 1,25

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

Section 147 is bad in law-Assessee's grounds\r\nallowed.\r\nThus when on the very basis of issuance of notice u/s 148/148A(B)/148(d) no\r\naddition has been made then no other addition/disallowance can be made. The\r\nother addition or disallowance can be made only with the addition/ disallowance\r\nproposed in the notice