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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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

SUKHVINDER SINGH,RAWATBHATA vs. APPELLANT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

264, New Market, Ward 2(4), Bawatbhata. Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AQUPS 6103 Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri B.L. Bhojwani(CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 29.03.2022. ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date

SH. SURENDER MEENA,36, PRATAP NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

264 − Relevant year, Assessing officer completed assessment under section 144 wherein he allowed deduction towards interest and remuneration paid to partners- Commissioner opined that when Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 144 he was required to disallow

SH. NARENDAR KUMAR AGARWAL,JAWALI BHAWAN, STATION ROAD, ALWAR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

264 − Relevant year, Assessing officer completed assessment under section 144 wherein he allowed deduction towards interest and remuneration paid to partners- Commissioner opined that when Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 144 he was required to disallow

MAHADEV ENCLAVE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

264 Taxman 76 (SC) Where High Court upheld Tribunal’s order holding that in absence of any exempt income reported by assessee, disallowance could not be made u/s 14A, SLP filed against said order was to be dismissed. CIT Vs. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 2 (SC) SLP dismissed against High Court ruling that section

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by\nchesques may not be always sacrosanct..............\" (Emphasis Supplied)\nThe contention of the appellant that since penalty for non-maintenance of proper\nbooks of account was initiated by the Assessing Officer under section 271A of the\nAct, addition for unexplained cash deposits in bank account cannot be made is\ntotally

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

VIKAS OIL PRODUCTS,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

OM INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JIAPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

JR INDUSTRIES,DAUSA vs. PCIT-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

264 of 1961 Act and the provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act are not identical with the provisions of section 263 of the 1961 Act. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 33A of 1922 Act which corresponds to section 263 of 1961 Act as under: "33A. Power of revision by Commissioner

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)

disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return. 12. The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion

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

UDAI LAL MAHABIR PRASAD,INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDIA

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

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

disallowing Rs.3,62,264 in respect of remuneration to Karta namely Shri Shikhar Chand Jain in his individual capacity who is partner in the appellant firm in his representative capacity representing Shikhar Chand Jain HUF as Karta of HUF It is humbly submitted that the remuneration is allowable as per section

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

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

264 CTR (BOM) 577 wherein it is held that disallowance of claim for deduction, When assessee had disclosed 14 NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS VS ACIT, CIRCLE- JUHNJHUNU material facts and there is neither suppression of the facts nor misinterpreted of facts by the assessee, the order of penalty was not sustainable. 5. CIT vs Arisudana Spinning Mills

DALAS BIOTECH LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to cost

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

disallowance of commission paid to various parties. Subsequently in 2nd round, the assessee again preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merits. 2.5 Against the order of dismissal of appeal of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred the present Appeal before us on the ground mentioned hereinabove. 2.6 The first ground raised