OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

section 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act on the fallacy of presumption that the auditor has disallowed the employee contribution to EPF /ESI. Moreover, there are contradictory judgements of the State High Courts and therefore the issue is highly debatable and as such the CPC is not authorised to disallow all claims of late payment. The question

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” Para 24: “Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the assessee.” c. CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 Relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the decision

AMBA TECH ENGINEERING,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 7,76,547/- was not in accordance with the provision of Section 43B of the Act as the said amount were duly remitted before the due date of filling of return of income. The appellant has referred to the decisions of various High Courts including the decision of jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rajasthan

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

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

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

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

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “4. Observation and decision: 4.1 The CPC Bangalore has been the addition/adjustment of Rs. 5,70,356/- u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that those payments were not made before the due date as per Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Appellant

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.AO taken a plausible view on allowability of the same which is legally allowed as it is usual that interest free funds would

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer credits such contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund within the due date applicable for that relevant fund. (v) On this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all the divergent decision of various High Courts has given a judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

36(1)(va) of the Act unless the employer credits such contribution to the employees account in the relevant fund within the due date applicable for that relevant fund. (v) On this issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering all the divergent decision of various High Courts has given a judgement in the case of Commissioner of Income

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

disallowance so made deserves to be deleted. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that assessee has duly complied with all the conditions as enumerated in section 36(1)(vii

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

disallowance so made deserves to be deleted. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that assessee has duly complied with all the conditions as enumerated in section 36(1)(vii

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

disallowance so made deserves to be deleted. 3.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that assessee has duly complied with all the conditions as enumerated in section 36(1)(vii

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