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

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

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

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

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

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

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

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)

4) of rule 46A and provisions of section 250, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in rejecting confirmation produced by Appellant straightaway and he should have directed Assessing Officer to consider said confirmation letters and find out identity, creditworthiness, etc., of persons who had advanced money to appellant from their respective bank accounts. J. Because the Appellant has furnished

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

4) of the act on11.11.2019during the search and seizure action under section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

250 Taxman 16 (SC) CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur [2014] 99 DTR 131 (Raj.)(HC) CIT Vs. Jaipur VidyutVitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 98 DTR 105 (Raj.) (HC) CIT Vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.)(HC) 4. Amendment brought by FA, 2021 by way of Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) and Explanation

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Act on 24.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the penalty order dated 26.09.2024 passed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act] by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (2), Ajmer. 2 Urmila Rajendra Mundra vs. ITO 2. In this appeal

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

4. The learned AO has erred in allowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- under section disallowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and claimed by the assessee under section on flimsy grounds. 54F of Income Tax Act in most arbitrary manner and on flimsy grounds. 5.The learned AO has erred

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

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

KULDEEP SINGH SHEKHAWAT,KOTA vs. ITO W-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Gagan Goyalkuldeep Singh Shekhawat, 11, Samridhi Traders, Police Line, Gopal Vihar, Baran Road-324001 Pan No. Araps0973M ...... Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota …... Respondent

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. The impugned order u/s. 143(3) dated 30.11.2018 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 2. Deduction claimed

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

250/-. The Appellant\nhas contested that the FDRs were not idle funds of the society and the same was\nbeing utilized in the business activities of providing credit facility to its members.\n5\nITA No. 213/JP/2025\nThe Bank of Rajasthan Employees Credit & Thirft Cooperative Society Limited\nDuring the Appellate Proceedings the Appellant was asked to furnish the following\ndetails:\nYou

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-KOTA, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V Ravi Vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 362 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation

UPENDRA KUMAR SONI,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CORCLE-KOTA, KOTA

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

250(5). On these facts, the addition made by the AO is found to be justified and confirmed. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.V Ravi Vs ITO [2021] 129 taxmann.com 44 (SC)/[2021] 281 Taxman 362 (SC) dismissed SLP against High Court ruling that where assessee took loan from an entity, however, failed to produce any confirmation

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

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