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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

28 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. submits that there can be no disallowance under the provisions of section

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

28 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. submits that there can be no disallowance under the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

28 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. submits that there can be no disallowance under the provisions of section

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

28 and for those amounts assessee’s explanation has not been objectively appreciated and even for those amounts in worst case scenario only 30% of the expense can be considered for disallowance in view of retrospective amendment in ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 5 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. section

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

28 and for those amounts assessee’s explanation has not been objectively appreciated and even for those amounts in worst case scenario only 30% of the expense can be considered for disallowance in view of retrospective amendment in ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 5 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. section

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

28 and for those amounts assessee’s explanation has not been objectively appreciated and even for those amounts in worst case scenario only 30% of the expense can be considered for disallowance in view of retrospective amendment in ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 5 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. section

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

28 and for those amounts assessee’s explanation has not been objectively appreciated and even for those amounts in worst case scenario only 30% of the expense can be considered for disallowance in view of retrospective amendment in ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 5 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. section

MODERN INSULATORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A and computed the quantum of disallowance on account of interest at Rs. 3,28,883/- and on account

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

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs.1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Inward and Rs.1,13,00,980/- claimed as expense towards Carriage Outward, and such additions shall stand deleted.” 28

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. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance can be made under section 43B, specifically excludes extension of such scope to employee's contribution governed by section 36(1)(va) - Held, yes [Para 19] [In favour of revenue]" 6.6 The head note of decision of ITAT , Delhi in case of Eagle .Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) ) Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 426 (Delhi - Trib.) is as under: "Section

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

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

28-09-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi 2 ITA 60/JP/2021 Nirmal Kumar Bardiya vs ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 & 2019-20 respectively. 2. The hearing of the appeals was concluded through video conference by both the parties in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

Sections 36(va) as well as 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect, the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 1.4.2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers contributions; disallowances u/s 43B as against employee u/s 6 ITA 163/JP/2022 Gosil Exports (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle

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)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and 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)

28-01-2021 is erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and liable to revision under clause (a) & (b) of the Explanation (2) of section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961. On the basis of her findings in para 6 to 9 at page 13 to 18 of her order, she set aside the assessment order

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 28 of the Act on principles of commercial accounting. The payments made for purchases would also be covered by the word 'expenditure' and such payments can be disallowed

GOYAL SALT PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

28 of that previous year, in which such sum is actually paid by him. Proviso to the said section provides that nothing contained in this section shall apply in relation to any sum which is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

28-12-2021, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference by both the parties in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 M/s. Shiv

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