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

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year\nforwhich set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due\ndate specified under sub-section (1) of section 139;\n(iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income]\nindicated in the audit report but not taken into account in\ncomputing the total income in the return

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)

26 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Assessment Year 1984-1985. The relevant accounting period ended on 30-6- 1983. The Income Tax Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by the assessee which was on account of sales tax collected by the assessee for the last quarter of the relevant accounting year. The deduction was disallowed under Section

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

26 Aravali Buildhome LLP itself but at the same time a casus omissus should not be readily inferred and for that purpose all the parts of a statute or section must be construed together and every clause of a section should be construed with reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the construction

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

26, 2006 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. George Williamson (Assam) Limited. 17. Allahabad High Court: December 21, 2016 Sagun Goundry Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur 18. Patna High Court: [2017} 393 ITR 386 March 16, 2016 M/s Bihar State warehousing Corporation Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, 19. DY Commissioner of Income Tax (19) Patna High

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 5,85,157/- that was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 5,85,157/- that was made

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 5,85,157/- that was made

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

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory\r\nlimit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or\r\nratio or fraction\r\n7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of\r\ndeduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance. The assesseemust succeed for this reason as well.” 9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate bench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance. The assesseemust succeed for this reason as well.” 9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate bench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate bench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 1