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

disallowance of Rs.1,95,27,206/- under section 43B of the Act. On\nperusal of the Form 3CA in column no. 26

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest

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

26,747/- should be allowed. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota erred in disallowing interest of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- in respect of borrowed funds alleged to be taken for investment made in the subsidiaries and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota further erred in partially confirming the disallowance of interest

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

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. 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

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

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)

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

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

26) (ia) of the Act, the assessee is a 'Company' and the MAT provisions are applicable to all companies. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was justified in holding that the assessee is not liable to MAT even after amendment in the Act and section 115JB(2) has been amended

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

26) Further it is submitted that for bringing clarity on the issue the Finance Bill, 2021 proposed to add an Explanation – 2 to section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation – 5 to section 43B specifically to disallow

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

26) Further it is submitted that for bringing clarity on the issue the Finance Bill, 2021 proposed to add an Explanation – 2 to section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation – 5 to section 43B specifically to disallow

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)

section 14A by inserting a non-obstante clause and Explanation will takeeffectfrom1-4-2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effects. 2.11 Entire investments shall not be considered to make disallowances. Ld PCIT computed total disallowance which required to be made u/s 14A at Rs. 2,53,26

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- 1. Judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur reported in (2014) 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan

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

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. 21. Given that we have adjudicated on the merits of the case whereby we have directed to delete the addition so made, the other ground of appeal relating to adjustment while processing the return

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37 of the Act by assuming project expense of Rs 26

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Rs 2,65,36,577 as unexplained expenses under section 37 of the Act by assuming project expense of Rs 26