DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

section 14A is not at all ambiguous and in fact very clear and\nby virtue of the same, only expenditure actually incurred in relation to income\n\nnot includible in total income shall be disallowed. In no way, it could be\ninterpreted that it seeks to disallow expenses incurred in relation to future\nexempt income, as it would be completely

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

disallowance does deincentivize not deducting tax at source, when such tax deductions are due, but, so far as the legal framework is concerned, this provision is not for the purpose of penalizing for the tax deduction at source lapses. The scheme of Section 40(a)(ia), as ITAT see it, is aimed at ensuring that an expenditure should

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 144. Thus, while disbelieving the claim of the assessee and that too in part he has not given the required notice pointing out any specific defects in the books of account and thereby proceeded to make the lump sum disallowance which are not permitted. We get support of our view from the various decision cited

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 144. Thus, while disbelieving the claim of the assessee and that too in part he has not given the required notice pointing out any specific defects in the books of account and thereby proceeded to make the lump sum disallowance which are not permitted. We get support of our view from the various decision cited

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

293/- on\naccount of deduction u/s 801A in respect of captive power plant.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned\nCIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the\nassessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on\naccount of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

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

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowed the same with special emphasis on the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). In this connection it is submitted that Section 35D was introduced in the statute book M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT w.e.f. 01-4-1971 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowed the same with special emphasis on the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). In this connection it is submitted that Section 35D was introduced in the statute book M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT w.e.f. 01-4-1971 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowed the same with special emphasis on the case of Brooke Bond India Ltd Vs CIT, 225 ITR 798 (SC). In this connection it is submitted that Section 35D was introduced in the statute book M/s Road Infrastructure Dev. Com. of Rajasthan Ltd. vs. ACIT w.e.f. 01-4-1971 and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

293/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER, AJMER

293/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power plant.\n2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the disallowance of Rs. 3,18,12,93,748/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA on account of Solid Waste

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

disallowed claim u/s 54F (which was allowed to the assessee in original assessment) by alleging that the assessee was owning more than one residential house on the date of transfer of original asset. 3. It is submitted that the assessee filed revised grounds of appeal before the CIT(A) but no fresh claim for any deductions were made

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

293 ITR 226 (SC) could only held the appellant cause if it would have been able to furnish documentary evidence in support of its claim that M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. recipient had included payment as their income. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 2,39,196/- is sustained. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 90,000/-, I find that

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

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

293 ITR 226 (SC) could only held the appellant cause if it would have been able to furnish documentary evidence in support of its claim that M/s Silvex & Co. (India) Ltd. recipient had included payment as their income. Accordingly, the disallowance of Rs. 2,39,196/- is sustained. As regards the disallowance of Rs. 90,000/-, I find that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, besides initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, vide Show Cause notice dated 19.03.2022. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has debited various expenses under different heads for which the assessee has failed to bring any documentary/supporting evidence in respect

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed that claim, that view was upheld..........\n28. This court notices that there are not less than 100 instances. For instance. Section\n35A. 35AB (3), 35ABB, 35D (5): 35DDA; 358; 41 (1) (Any benefit accrued by the\namalgamated co.) from cessation of liability of amalgamating company shall be taxed in\nthe hands of the amalgamated company

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)

disallow Rs. 5,00,000/- out of total expenses of Rs. 11,86,847/- under this head and added in the total income of the assessee. Based on the above observation ld. AO completed the assessment proceeding as per provision of section 143(3) of the Act on 09.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, assessee preferred