CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) stating that the assessee had utilised a part of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency. He made a disallowance out of the interest paid 34

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

disallowance of Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened by ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 34

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 34

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 34

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 34

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) does not arise just because there is violation of provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act. 34

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

34,83,925 It was also submitted that no exempt income has been earned during the assessment year under appeal so as to attract any disallowance under section

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 194A, was to be accepted - Held, yes- Whether, consequently, impugned disallowance made by authorities below was to be deleted - Held, yes. In the instant case, the claim of the assessee was that at the time of paying the interest to the 34

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallowance under section 40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the binding decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court. 21. Given that we have adjudicated on the merits of the case whereby we have directed to delete the addition so made, the other ground of appeal relating to adjustment while processing the return

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

disallowance u.s. 14Aof Income Tax Act,1961 should be made.” It is clearly evident from the above reply submitted that assessee never admitted that case is covered by the provisions of section 14A of the Act and also the explanatory circular of CBDT No. 5/2014. Accordingly, this revisionary order passed u/s 263 of I. Tax Act is arbitrary assuming wrong

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR vs. ASHOK SHARMA, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

Section 34 which is only the interest received for delay\nin making the payment after the compensation amount is\ndetermined. Thus, the interest u/s 28 is a part of the value of the\nland.\n6. The it. CIT (A) held that the interest received u/s 28 of the\nLand Acquisition Act, 1894 is not exempt under

M/S. ALOKIK STEELS PVT. LTD VILLAGE POST-PATAN, TEHSIL-KISHANGARH, DISTRICT-AJMER,KISHANGARH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in light of aforesaid directions

disallowed by the ld. Pr. CIT. In support, the reliance was placed on Jaipur Bench decision in case of Navjeevan Trade & Commodities Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO (2018) 8 TMI 665. 9. It was further submitted that the GP ratio was rightly disclosed by the assessee and entire turnover could not have been added by the Assessing Officer and in support

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

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 540 ( Rajasthan) [PB 34

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

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

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 540 ( Rajasthan) [PB 34

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

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

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1 )(va) of the IT Act" • CIT vs.Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 49 taxmann.com 540 ( Rajasthan) [PB 34