OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

3 Ocean Exim India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 5. In first appeal the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) who confirmed the disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “8. I view of the aforesaid, it is amply clear that even prior to insertion of Explanation 2 in section 36(1

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowing the claim of expenditure of Rs. 1,71,67,000/- by applying section 40A(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

1)(a)(ii) for Rs. 86,905/- by disallowing PF and other contribution paid after due date prescribed by respective labour laws, out of sum collected from employees contribution to PF/ESIC etc. The assessee has stated that disallowance of Rs. 86,905/- was not in accordance with the provision of Amit Singh vs. DCIT, CPC Section

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO (CPC) in disallowing the Employees Contribution to PF of Rs.86,97,076/- u/s 143(1) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) which is beyong the scope of Section

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 143(1) of the Act on 02.11.2022. While processing that return the income of the assessee was determined at Rs. 1,27,13,930/- and in that processing the deduction u/s. 80IBA of Rs. 1,27,13,930/- claimed by the assessee was 3 Aravali Buildhome LLP denied considering that the return filed by the assessee was beyond

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance: clause 21(b)- Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a), clause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

3) by way of salary and foreign travel expenditure which has been disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1

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

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance ⚫Clause 21(b)-Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a), ⚫ Clause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

disallow the appellant's deduction claim under section 80P while processing the return under section 143(1) of the Act. Consequently, all the raised appeal grounds are rejected. 7. As a result, the appeal is hereby dismissed." 4.2 It is not imperative to repeat the facts of the case for the assessment year 2019-20 as the issue raised

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

3) of Act, at total income Rs. 5,93,25,040/- wherein the returned income was accepted except for an addition of Rs. 28 M/s Rambhajo’s vs. ACIT 1,60,479/- which was made on a/c of disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain income”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain income”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 7.1 As regards ground no. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal against restricting the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act from Rs. 6,83,23,399/- to Rs. 3,35,092/-. The facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) is as under :- “3.3.3 I have duly considered assessee

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as per the provision\r\nof section 80AC of the Act.\r\n5. 1. Before moving further, let me first surface provision of section 80AC of the Act\r\nwhich comes into force from 01/04/2018. The provision of section 80AC is as under\r\n:-\r\n[Deduction not to be allowed unless return

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1). Upon co joint reading of both the provision of the Act we note that both the section deal with the section 139 and it does not speak any sub- section on that section 139. Thus, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT-1 Vs. Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel 84 taxmann.com 32 (Gujarat) wherein

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance in apparent from the details filed. These details have been filed by the appellant itself and that processing has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va), the details entered by the appellant are automatically detected

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action