M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, 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

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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 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

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

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

disallowance is called for under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of the payment made by the assessee. Thus he has pleaded that the case may be set aside to the file of the AO for limited purpose of verification of this factual position that the amount paid by the assessee was considered and included in the income of Central

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

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

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

35 taxmann.com 216 (Gujarat) has held that- “Section 142 of the Act pertains to inquiry before assessment. Sub-section (2A) thereof provides that if, at any stage of proceedings the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature Sh. Subhash Pareta, Kota vs. ACIT, Kota and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue

SMT. NIRMALA GOYAL,AJMER vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow deduction u/s 54F. AO is directed to allow exemption of Rs. 1,20,50,000/- u/s 54F as claimed by appellant.” The directions of the ld CIT(A) are therefore crystal clear and there is no ambiguity that the assessee is eligible for deduction u/s 54F amounting to Rs 120,50,000. In pursuance to the said directions

M/S AVIS LIFE CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance u/s 35(1)(ii) of the Act could be made in the instant case. 8.3. We find that there is no provision in 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.

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