M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance was computed under section 14A r.w.r 8D and confirmed an addition of Rs. 24.90 lakhs (i.e. proportionate expenditure of Rs. 22.03 lakhs and half percent of average investments of Rs. 2.86 lakhs) and directed the AO to delete the balance addition of Rs. 25

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention That The Revenue Has Assailed The Appeal In Ita No.453/Jp/2024 On The Following Grounds; “(I) Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,33,606/- Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Shown Bogus Purchase Of Rs 1,73,34,424/- During The Year From A Bogus Concern. 3

disallowed purchase of Rs. 43,33,606/- being 25% of alleged purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- found to be unverifiable by invoking provisions of 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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed purchase of Rs. 43,33,606/- being 25% of alleged purchases of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- found to be unverifiable by invoking provisions of section

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

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

25-09-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference by both the parties in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 2 RMC Gems India Ltd. vs ADIT CPC,Bengaluru 3. The grounds of appeal raised

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

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI is directly covered by the decision of Hon’ble bench of ITAT Jaipur in appellant own case ITA. No. 1064/JP/2018 ay 2014-15 dated 25-04-2019 and also in case of State bank Of Bikaner and Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd in ITA No.359/JP/2006, ITA No.358/JP/2006 & ITA No.825/JP/2008

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

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed a sum of Rs. 86,905!- being employees contribution to PF / ESI as the appellant failed to deposit the same within due dates specified in the respective Acts by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) nw.s. 2(24)(x) and provisions of section 43B are not applicable to the employees contribution to PF/ESI. To conclude, all the grounds

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