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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- was made out of the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds which was claimed under section

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

section\n43B(e) of the Act, such interest can be allowed only when it is\npaid before the due date for filing ITR u/s 139(1) of the Act. As\nper clause 26(i)(B) (a) the amount of interest on bank loans paid\n4\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\nbefore the due date

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 u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is permissible, even there is violation of the provisions of Section 194C(7) of the Act. 35

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)

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalrashleela Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., C-5, Krishna Balram, Calgiri Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017. Pan No.: Aadcr2594J ...... Appellant Vs.

disallowance of donation claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000. The action of the Ld. CIT (A) is illegal

DCIT, CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. P.R. ROLLING MILLS PVT LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the department are allowed

Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, would not be withdrawn subsequently when recognition has been rescinded. Similarly the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata ITAT in the case of Saimed innovation Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2231/Kol/2016 order dated 13/09/2017 has held that weighted deduction claimed U/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be denied on the basis of statement

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. P.R. ROLLING MILLS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the department are allowed

Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, would not be withdrawn subsequently when recognition has been rescinded. Similarly the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata ITAT in the case of Saimed innovation Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2231/Kol/2016 order dated 13/09/2017 has held that weighted deduction claimed U/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be denied on the basis of statement

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance. The assesseemust succeed for\nthis reason as well.\"\n9. With our utmost respect to the findings of the co-ordinate\nbench [supra], we are of the considered view that the co-ordinate\nbench has ignored the binding ratio decidendi of the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd [supra]. It would be\npertinent

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

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.

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. 35

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

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

35 M/s Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT nexus to the failure of such object. Therefore the genuineness of the transactions and it being free from vice of any device of evasion of tax is relevant consideration and which should be examined before invoking the rigours of section 40A(3) of the Act. 33. In case of Anupam Tele Services

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

35 or section 35AD or section 35CCC or section 35CCD or under any provisions of 31-32[Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of section 80JJAA or section 80M]; (ii) without set off of any loss carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred

SH. CHANDRMA SINGH,02/334, UIT COLONY, BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ACIT, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35,742/ being the employee’s contribution to the PF and ESI, not deposited by the appellant within in the due date as per the respective Act in accordance with the Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be allowed and accordingly, this ground is partly allowed. 6. It is, therefore, held that the disallowance

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

35,556/- made by the AO are w.r.t. disallowance u/s. 40(1)(ia) of the Act. In any case this issue is also covered by decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in favour of the assessee in Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.'s case (supra) as disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act is a statutory disallowance

GOYAL SALT PRIVATE LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd (supra) and Indian Geotechnical Services (supra). As far as the applicability of amendment made

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance as per Rule 8D by taking\ninto consideration only those shares which have yielded dividend income in\nthe year under consideration. Though the Tribunal has noted the decision of\nthe Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 35 taxmann.com 404, there are\nseveral other decisions on the said point and the machinery provision under\nRule

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance so made and confirmed qua this issue. 10. Ground No. 2 of the appeal raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 21,80,000/- made by the A.O. U/s 68 of the Act. In this regard, the ld. AR has reiterated the same arguments as were