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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

section 43B since paid before the due date of filling ITR\nleaving balance disallowable Rs.42,03,553/-\nThe Id. AO will verify the above figures with challans and delete the\namount in accordance with the law as discussed herein above.\nIn terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no.\n197/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

section 43B since paid before the due date of filling ITR\nleaving balance disallowable Rs.42,03,553/-\nThe Id. AO will verify the above figures with challans and delete the\namount in accordance with the law as discussed herein above.\nIn terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no.\n197/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

section 43B since paid before the due date of filling ITR\nleaving balance disallowable Rs.42,03,553/-\nThe Id. AO will verify the above figures with challans and delete the\namount in accordance with the law as discussed herein above.\nIn terms of these observations, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no.\n197/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purpose

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether since tax was deducted by\nassessee on behalf of third party, interest charged on failure to remit\nsame within due date to government would be compensatory in nature\nand interest paid on delayed payment of TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas

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.’’

disallowed under Section 43B of the L.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the party is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res-integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” Para 24: “Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the assessee.” c. CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 Relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the decision

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 u.s. 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 should be made. This fact can be easily verifiable from the Balance Sheet available before ld FAO. Ld PCIT has not specifically pointed out any credible defects in that. The ld. AO satisfied himself about the genuineness of the 27 Career Point Limited, Kota. explanation of assessee. When the legislature has empowered

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 taxmann 16 has dismissed the SLP filed by the Department this issue is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Hence, disallowances-additions made by the AO on account of employees contribution to PF & ESI are deleted. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed." 2.2 In Tokeim India (P) Ltd. vs DCIT

S R AUTOMOBILES,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-3(1), JAIPUR

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

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

250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non- 2 S.R. Automobiles, Jaipur prosecution, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.) 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in passing the appellate order without ensuring proper service

ASHA PANCHARYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

250 of IT Act was passed against the principles of natural justice, without providing any opportunity to the assessee.. 2. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not following the law laid down by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court/ 1.Tax Appellate Tribunal that employees' contribution towards PF and ESI cannot be disallowed if paid

MODERN MASTI PVT, LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year.

disallowed u/s. 43B. The assessee contended that avoiding the binding nature of judgments, the CPC, Bangalore was not justified in making addition of Rs.11,52,115/- which was paid before due date of filing of Return of Income and in rejecting application. The matter were carried to CIT(A)/NFAC by the assessee and the appeal of the assessee

NICE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,1-A,KESHEV NAGAR, CIVIL LINES,JAIPUR,RAJASTHAN,INDIA,302019 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

250 Taxman 0016 (SC) Thus the ld. AR of the assssee prayed that in view of the above settled legal position, the disallowance so made by the authorities below may kindly be deleted. 4.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

250/- and on account of disallowance of expenses on lump-sum basis for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the same has been decided in the favor of revenue by ex parte order passed on 25/09/2024. In the instant case the assessee preferred

RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 1 , C-SCHEME, JAIPUR

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

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs. 1,42,170/- due to late deposition of contribution to PF and ESI in violation of the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Thus, Respondent No.1 made the total addition of Rs. 2,03,34,571/- to the returned income of Rs. 48,63,850/-, thereby assessing the income of the Appellant

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the IT Act even when in the original grounds of appeal the assess didn’t mentioned the change in section from section 54F to 54.’ On the above ground, the following is submitted: 1. It is submitted that the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) through

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

250 of the Income Tax\r\nAct 1961 [ for short Act ]dated 27.05.2025 for the assessment year 2019-\r\n20. Ld. CIT(A) passed that order because the assessee had challenged\r\nassessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed under section 147r.w.s.144\r\nread with section 144B of the Act by National Faceless Assessment Unit of\r\nIncome Tax Department [ for short