ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF RAJASTHAN LTD,,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

disallowing Share Issue Expenses of Rs. 1,50,35,287/- and adding back to the income, considering the same as capital expenditure and has also erred in not considering the plea of the Appellant to allow the said expenditure under section 35D

SHRI HARSHVARDHAN JOHARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, ground no. 2 of assessee’s appeal is dismissed

disallowed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). On appeal, the Tribunal allowed the deduction of entire expenditure and in that context, the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as under: “8. In the instant case, the Tribunal concluded that after completion of studies, the aforesaid person kept himself engaged in the business

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

disallowance as it would prejudice the mind of the AO, which would again be challenged for passing the assessment order on the directions of Id. PCIT. The Id. AR himself admitted that detailed working of gross profit and other issue were filed during revision proceedings, which implied that such details were neither sought by the AO nor submitted

DATA INFOSYS LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, revenue’s ground no

section 35D. 2. That the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Alwar has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in restricting the disallowance

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowance at all was made u/s 40(a)(ia) in those years and also even in 2013 14 when the disallowance was made u/s 195, the AO did not term such commission payment as fees for technical services. Thus, there being no special reason and without bringing any change in facts & circumstances, the AO wrongly considered such commission payment

RAJASTHAN STATE MINES & MINERALS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

section 32 of the Act, moreover, the amortization of land is not specified u/s 35D(2) of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that in the original assessment proceedings no query was raised in this respect. Therefore, the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind on the issue of allowability of such claim hence non-considering of this issue resulted

RAMESHWAR PRASAD SHRINGI,GUMANPURA vs. PR.CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

35D and therefore, expenses only to extent that had nexus to eligible projects were admissible— However, Tribunal, noted that in last seven years, no such disallowances were made and directed such benefit to be granted—Held, since last several years, AO had granted such claim on same consideration—Following rule of consistency, Tribunal therefore, correctly held that such claim could

AKSH OPTIFIBRE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, ALWAR

In the result, all the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed that claim, that view was upheld..........\n28. This court notices that there are not less than 100 instances. For instance. Section\n35A. 35AB (3), 35ABB, 35D