JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

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

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

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

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

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

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1) dated 15-01-2021, an amount of Rs. 10,09,51,96,741/- has been computed as book profits u/s 115JB, thereby disallowing an amount of Rs. 8,47,12,846/-. Net disallowance of Rs. 8,47,12,846/- comprises of following components:- (i) Disallowance of Health and Education Cess of Rs. 8,47,73,077/-. The levy

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies

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)

ii) of the Act. It is further held that the insertion of the words, "increase in income in section 143(1)(a)(iv) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 will have no impact on such disallowance. Similar decisions have been rendered by other Hon'ble Tribunals also as in the case of Ms.Nalina Dyave Gowda Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax in ITA No.685/Bang/2022

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)

ii) of the Act. It is further held that the insertion of the words, "increase in income in section 143(1)(a)(iv) w.e.f. 01.04.2021 will have no impact on such disallowance. Similar decisions have been rendered by other Hon'ble Tribunals also as in the case of Ms.Nalina Dyave Gowda Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax in ITA No.685/Bang/2022

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ii) amend section 43B of the Act by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section to clarify that the provisions of the said section do not apply and deemed to never have been applied to a sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 applies

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

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

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 1

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

disallowance. The\nassesseemust succeed for this reason as well.”\n9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate bench\n[supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate bench has\nignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\ncase of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be pertinent

DANISH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Hearing.”

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

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)

32,25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been held as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The AO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

1)(a)(ii) for Rs.5,61,32,750/- 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.5,61,32,750/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section

AJEET SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

32,564 15.07.2016 July, 2016 34241 14.09.2016 15.08.2016 August, 2016 32483 10.10.2016 15.09.2016 September, 2016 32613 11.11.2016 15.10.2016 October, 2016 33447 15.12.2016 15.11.2016 November, 2016 13.01.2017 34959 15.12.2016 December, 2016 32059 13.02.2017 15.01.2017 January, 2017 28262 17.03.2017 15.02.2017 17.05.2017 15.03.2017 February, 2017 29640 March, 2017 31971 22.04.2017 15.04.2017 Total 3,83,373 5. In first appeal the assessee carried

RAM RATAN JANGIR,AMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 32(1) (ii) only for making the proportionate disallowance. Now section 32(1)(ii) is quoted below : " 32 (1