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

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

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR

section 153A of the Act. ** ** ** 35 ITA Nos. 293(7)/JP/2017 Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Jaipur. 19. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended that if any incriminating material is found, notwithstanding that in relation to the year under consideration, no incriminating material is found, it would be permissible to make additions and disallowance

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