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

disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because the assessee failed

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

27 ITA 1171/JP/2019_ ACIT Vs M/s Jagdambe Stone Company of section 194C(7), and just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7), disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 15.13. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27

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

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 15.13. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 15.13. The Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 165 ITD 27

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

section 194C(7) of the Act? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

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

section 194C(7) of the Act? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

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

section 194C(7) of the Act? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

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

section 194C(7) of the Act? 2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,27,68,281/- when it cannot be ascertained as to when the assessee obtained these PAN nos. from the transporters?” The Assessing Officer made total disallowance

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)

Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) • Deduction of tax at source on matching the expense debited in profit and loss account with the amounts reported in clause 34 of the tax audit report • Difference in the amount of unabsorbed business loss allowed to be carried forward

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

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

section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance by purportedly following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 13th March, 2018 in case

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

27,65,853/- to Central Power Research Institute (CPRI) as testing fee on which TDS was required to be made under section 194C of the IT Act. However, the assessee has not deducted TDS in respect of the said payment. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the same was disallowed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance by purportedly following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 13th 6 RMC Gems India

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

27] [In favour of revenue] Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance

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)

27,006/- against which disallowance of expenditure amounting to 42,22,857/- was made. The AO has not recorded his satisfaction as to how the expenditure disallowed by the assessee of 629878/- towards administrative expenses is not reasonable. Further we find that the assessee has demonstrated by placing sufficient material on record that no borrowed funds were utilized for making

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

disallowed by the AO which has reached finality in computing the total income of the assessee shall, for the purpose of clause (c) of this subsection (1) of section 271, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed. Thus, I confirm the penalty levied by the AO of Rs. 72,45,844/- u/s: 27

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

27-09-2021. 4.6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that the amendment to Section 36(1)(va) as well as 43B of the Act vide Finance Bill, 2021 is clarificatory in nature and therefore, applicable with retrospective effect. The ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has relied upon the decision

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

disallowance made under section 14A read with rule 8D was unjustified at Page no. 310 to 321 of the PB. 37 ITANo.2&212/JPR/202 2 MayurUniquotersLtd. V, 28. In case of ACIT vs. A U Financiers (India) P Ltd. Hon’ble jurisdictional Tribunal has held as under: 27