PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section 36(1)(vii) and thus deserves to be excluded.\nDuring the course of assessment proceedings, Id.AO sought complete details\nregarding bad debts vide notice issued u/s 142(1) dated 8.11.2019, in response\nto which complete ledger accounts of debts written off were furnished.\nSubsequently, two more notices were issued u/s 142(1), one dated

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

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

ACIT, SIKAR vs. SIKAR KENDRIYA SAHKARI BANK LTD., SIKAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(viia) for the assessment year 2007-08. 3 ACIT Vs. Sikar Kendriya Sahkari bank Ltd. 4. By the order dated 02/11/2010, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the decline of claim U/s 36(1)(viia). In a further appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance

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

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

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.]” 23. On perusal of the provisions reproduced above, it is evident that the deduction u/s 36(1

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

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.]” 23. On perusal of the provisions reproduced above, it is evident that the deduction u/s 36(1

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

viia) of sub-section (1) applies, no such deduction shall be allowed unless the assessee has debited the amount of such debt or part of debt in that previous year to the provision for bad and doubtful debts account made under that clause.]” 23. On perusal of the provisions reproduced above, it is evident that the deduction u/s 36(1

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

viia) of sub-section (1) of section 36. 15. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the facts and findings of the decision relied upon and in particular he draw our attention to the detailed findings given in the case of CIT Vs. Knight Frank (India) Private Limited : “4. In appeals for both the assessment years, the Commissioner

DATA INFOSYS LIMITED,ALWAR vs. DCIT, ALWAR

In the result, revenue’s ground no

36. (1) The deductions provided for in the following clauses shall be allowed in respect of the matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section 28: (vii) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee

M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAN PATH, JYOTI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, , JAIPUR

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

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

section (2), the amount of any bad debt or part thereof which is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for the previous year: Provided that in the case of an assesseeto which clause (viia) applies, the amount of the deduction relating to any such debt or part thereof shall be limited to the amount by which

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

disallowance could not be made while acting u/s 154 reason being this was not prima facie mistake it was a highly debatable issue—Held, it was clear from above that deletion of Rs.67,33,445 allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) could not be said to have been made in rectification of an error apparent in assessment order—Court

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

disallowance of provision for Bad and Doubtful debts of Rs. 2,71,72,000/- is bad in law as the appellant is Scheduled Bank governed by RBI Guidelines and provisions made are allowable business expenditures under section 36(1)(viia

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

viia): Rs.31.81 crore However in Balance sheet, segment wise break up of long term finance for the purpose of deduction claimed u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act was not furnished. In schedule 2 of the Balance sheet, amount shown for Special Reserve u's 36 (1) (vii) was Rs 20.50 crore instead of Rs.17.51 crore claimed as above. Further

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viia)… (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:’’ This has also

M/S GANPATI EXCLUSIVE DESIGNER SAREES PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

viia)… (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares:’’ This has also