ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 13(1) (c)". 3 ACIT vs. Global Institute of Technology i. "Whether Id. CIT(A) justified in holding entire reassessment is considered void and illegal without considering the merits of the addition of disallowances

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

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

3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

disallowed the said amount as per the provisions of section\n40A(3) of the Act while passing order under section

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowance can be made under section 40A(3) – [Section 145, Read with section 40A(3), of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 – Method

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

3) for AY 2016-17\nand the appeal is still pending for disposal. The assessee company\nhad claimed MAT credit on the basis of return filed.\n5. As regards the issue relating to disallowance under section

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

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

Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same is disallowed. S. No.3:- The assessee company purchased agricultural land of Rs. 9089000/- from

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

Section 40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed

SHRI GOVIND NARAIN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Although The Second Round Of Assessment Was Completed At The Directions Of Hon’Ble Itat.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 8,78,500/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any cogent reason and hence needs to deleted. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in confirming

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

3 to section 40(a)(ii)\ninserted by Finance Act 2022 w.e.f. 01.04.2005. Further,\nthe Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated\n14.012.2022 in SLP(c) No. 7329/2019, has decided this\nissue in favour of Revenue for the A.Y. 2009-10 in the\ncase of the assessee. The FAO/AO, during the\nassessment proceedings didn't disallow

RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

disallowing claim of the appellant for set off of the carried forward loss of specified business (u/s 35AD) of Rs. 16,95,003 for the AY 2013-14 out of income earned from specified business in the AY 2017-18. He has erred further in holding that the amendment in section 139(3

RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

disallowing claim of the appellant for set off of the carried forward loss of specified business (u/s 35AD) of Rs. 16,95,003 for the AY 2013-14 out of income earned from specified business in the AY 2017-18. He has erred further in holding that the amendment in section 139(3

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO further noted that assessee made payments of Rs. 55,34,000/-on bank holidays which are excluding the purview of sec 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO thus disallowed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHIV VEGPRO PVT. LTD., KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 6,48,000/- made by AO on account of disallowance of freight payment without appreciating facts discussed by the AO in the assessment order. 4. The appellant craves liberty to raise additional ground/s and to modify/amend the ground

RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the setting off of the loss of AY 2013-14 with that of the profit of the current year since the return of income for AY 2013-14 was as belated return. 5.3 During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant claimed that the phrase "or sub-section (2) of section 73A" was inserted in section 139(3

SMT. IRVIND KAUR GUJRAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 11JB of the Act. Let us take up these two issues first, and then we will proceed to take up the remaining issues raised in the appeal. 3. So far as the first issue is concerned, i.e. exclusion of profits of foreign branches from taxable income in India, this is certainly an issue of wider ramification touching the assessment