DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

36(1)(va) are satisfied i.e., depositing such amount received or deducted from the employee on or before the due date. In other words, there is a marked distinction between the nature and character of the two amounts – the employer’s liability is to be paid out of its income whereas the second is deemed an income, by definition, since

ACIT CIRCLE-SAWAI MADHOPUR, SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. M/S. HINDAUN SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD. STATION ROAD, HINDAUN CITY, KARAULI, KARAULI

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

disallowance made on account of Principal NPA of Rs. 32,42,000/-. 3. The ld. D/R has contended that since provisions of section 36(1)(viia) are not applicable in assessee’s case being a primary Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank, then the order of the LD. CIT (A) is contrary to section 36(1)(viia

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group companies/associates , and to remit the matter to Learned Assessing Officer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds available with the assessee during the assessment years under consideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group companies/associates , and to remit the matter to Learned Assessing Officer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds available with the assessee during the assessment years under consideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group companies/associates , and to remit the matter to Learned Assessing Officer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds available with the assessee during the assessment years under consideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

36(1)(via) become applicable on the Appellant. 15. Therefore, the purpose of netting off is not attracted in the present case and if netting off is done legal claim will be denied to the Appellant. Hence, the observations of the Ld. PCIT is devoid of any substance and legal backing. Conclusion 16. Thus, on the basis of our submissions

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

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)

disallowance is required to be vacated. As regards the second ground of appeal ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that Health and Education cess is not included in the Explanation 1 & 2 to section 115JB(2) of the Act and therefore, the same cannot be considered as income tax for the purpose of clause (1) to Explanation 1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

36(1)(iii) of the Act\nin respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group\ncompanies/associates\nand to remit the matter to Learned Assessing\nOfficer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds\navailable with the assessee during the assessment years under\nconsideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

36(1)(iii) of the Act\nin respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group\ncompanies/associates\nand to remit the matter to Learned Assessing\nOfficer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds\navailable with the assessee during the assessment years under\nconsideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowed the interest in accordance with the provision of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and not as per provision of section 57(iii) of the Act as the assessee has already offered the income under the head income from business Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore or profession. The provision of section both these sections are extracted for the sake

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

VIA of Rs. 1,07,406/- declared total Income of Rs.5,12,690/-. 3.1 During assessment proceeding, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 4,76,48,248/- against the turnover of Rs. 2,87,60,719/- implying that the sundry creditors are more than the turnover, in any business the waiting time

M/S S B B J,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) by Rs. 1,25,99,060/- (7.5% of 2.87,37,353 + 2,57,47,000 + 11,35,03,112). 7. Through written submission and arguments it was stated that the AO is misreading section 36(1) (viia) as the section states that the deduction is to be limited to an amount

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

disallowed claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) by Rs. 1,25,99,060/- (7.5% of 2.87,37,353 + 2,57,47,000 + 11,35,03,112). 7. Through written submission and arguments it was stated that the AO is misreading section 36(1) (viia) as the section states that the deduction is to be limited to an amount

INTEGRAL URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Us. In This Appeal, The Assessee Bank Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

disallowed by the AO as deduction under section 36(1)(viia) and 36(1)(viii) have separately been allowed and we donot see any infirmity in the action of the ld CIT(A) in confirming the same. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 17. Regarding the additional grounds of appeal no. 1

SUPREME BUILDESTATES PVT LTD,MADANGANJ- KISHANGARH vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2 AJMER, JAIPUR ROAD AJMER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed by new Explanation 2 to section 37(1), while computing Income under the Head Income from Business and Profession'. Further, clarification regarding impact of Explanation 2 to section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act in Explanatory Memorandum to The Finance (No.2) Bill, 2014 is as under: “The existing provisions of section 37(1) of the Act provide that

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 139(1) of the Act. Before processing the return u/s 143(1), CPC proposed to make the following adjustment u/s 143(1) vide communication dated 21.10.2022. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s143(1) by CPC on 13.11.2022 and the following additions were made therein: (i) Deduction under Chapter VIA-u/s 80JAA disallowed Rs. 1

GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

1) of the Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as long as it satisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing income under the head,“Income from Business and Profession.” 16. Forclaiming benefit under section 80G, deductions