PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

disallowance under Section 14A of the Act can\nbe made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income? - HELD THAT:- A\nperusal of the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 2022 reveals that it explicitly stipulates\nthat the amendment made to Section 14A will take effect from 1st April, 2022 and will\napply in relation to the assessment year

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: moving towards the facts of the case we would like to mention that the assessee has assailed the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 in

260/- is unjustified and uncalled for. In view of above the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.” 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was also placed on the following evidence / records : S. No. Particulars Pg No. Filed before AO/ CIT(A) 1. Copy of submission dt. 31.01.2021 filed before

M/S G.D. TAMBI & SONS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

260/- is unjustified and uncalled for. In view of above the disallowance confirmed by the CIT(A) be directed to be deleted.” 8. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was also placed on the following evidence / records : S. No. Particulars Pg No. Filed before AO/ CIT(A) 1. Copy of submission dt. 31.01.2021 filed before

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

disallowing the advertisement expenditure claimed by the assessee - There is nothing on record to suggest that the order of AO is not sustainable in law – the order of the CIT is set aside – Decided in favour of assessee. 22 Pinkcity Jewelhouse Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT 29. Further it is settled law that initiation of 263 proceedings should

SMT. SUMAN CHOUDHARY,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

260, is reproduced below: "Now the Act does not give any power of dismissal. But it is axiomatic that no court or tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every tribunal possesses." 3.4 The principle

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

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

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 43B 15,42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

Disallowance u/s 43B 15,42,573/- 10,89,538/- NIL (No appeal for balance) 5. Donation 51,000/- No Appeal - 6. ESI Demand 1,09,115/- 1,09,115/- NIL 7. ESI Penalty 1,17,135/- 1,17,135/- NIL 8. TDS Demand 8020/- NIL 8020/- 9. Penalty for late deposit 10,295/- NIL 10,295/- M/s Silvex & Co. (India

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) in view of insertion of Explanation 2 to section 195 by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962. X 20 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur 30. In the present case, undisputed facts are that the commission has been paid to various non-resident entities in respect

PAPPU JAISWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow 15% of total contract receipt of Rs. 19,15,000/-that comes to Rs. 2,87,250/-. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 11 Pappu Jaiswal vs. ITO 2,87,250/- was made and added to the total income of the assessee. Thus, total income of the assessee was computed as under : Add: Unexplained cash deposit

S. P. C. INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD. ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, , 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)

section 36(1)(va). Hence, as per discussion above and in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC), the action of the AO in this regard is, therefore, confirmed and the ground of appeal No. 1 & 2 are not allowed.’’ 2.3 During

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 37(1) but failed to produce relevant evidence to justify said expenditure, Assessing Officer was justified in making adhoc disallowance of same. 5.1.15 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sandeep Marwah [2019] 101 taxmann.com 123 (Delhi)/[2019] 260

HARISH SHARMA HUF,B-1, PATODIYA MARG, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-5(3), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance of the long term capital gain claim is not relevant in the wake of findings of fact" In the case of Shamim Imtiaz Hingora, the ITAT, Pune has held that though the AO did not find any mistake in the documentation furnished by the assessee, there is need for finding of fact on (i) the nature of the shares

RAM NIWAS VERMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

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

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

260/-. 3. The appellant was requested repeatedly to file reply. During the course of appellate proceedings vide notice dated 17/02/2021, 27/04/2022, 06/02/2023 & 03/03/2023. However no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made no submission 4 RAM NIWAS VERMA VS ITO,WARD 2(4), JAIPUR

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, NEHRU SEHKAR BHAWAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

section 43B of the Income Tax Act if the payments were made before due date of filing of Return. We place reliance on following judgements :- CIT Vs. Aimi Lud. (3211TR508) (Delhi HC) CIT Vs. P.M. Electronics (3131TR161) (Delhi HC) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. (3181TR123) (Karnataka HC) CIT Vs. SBBJ (2014)) (365ITR 70) (Rajasthan HC) CIT VS. JVVNL

RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Him The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-6, Jaipur [ For Short Ao ] U/S 143

section 43B of the Income Tax Act if the payments were made before due date of filing of Return. We place reliance on following judgements :- CIT Vs. Aimi Lud. (3211TR508) (Delhi HC) CIT Vs. P.M. Electronics (3131TR161) (Delhi HC) CIT Vs. ANZ Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. (3181TR123) (Karnataka HC) CIT Vs. SBBJ (2014)) (365ITR 70) (Rajasthan HC) CIT VS. JVVNL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SUPREME POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the results the appeal of the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 189/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur बनाम Vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. 137-138, Industrial Area, Jhotwara, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AACCS 5773 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Shri Gaurav Nahata, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की ता

260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the following substantial questions of law have been framed…. 32 DCIT vs. Supreme Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. ITAT was justified in dismissing the appeal of Revenue in not considering the issue on merit especially when