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

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

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

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER vs. M/S SILVERTOSS COMMODITIES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

viia) of the Act to the declared income of the appellant. The assessee objected to the proposed addition on the ground that during the search no incriminating material indicating any undisclosed income for the year under consideration was found, which is also apparently clear from the assessment order itself. Further it was contended since there is no incriminating material found

BARODA RAJASTHAN KHESTRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. PCIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed. (d) The AO/NFAC, while making the assessment u/s 147/144B of the I.T. Act, 1961, made addition of Rs.3,39,25,000/- only on this account, whereas, he should have examined the dis- allowability of total sum of Rs.26,51,59,000/- which was earmarked by you as "Provisions for Standard Asset", as per Section 36(1) (viia

FINOVA CAPITAL PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

Disallowance u/s. 40A(7)(Gratuity provision) vi. Share Capital / Other Capital 5 Finova Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. PCIT During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of IT act, 1961, assessee company has duly submitted reply along with all required documents and clarification as required by the Ld. AO. Upon verification of the records so produced ld. AO [ i.e. National eAssessment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, DAINIK NAVJYOTI BUILDING, RAWATBHATA ROAD, KOTA vs. KOTA SAHAKARI BHOOMI VIKAS BANK LTD, RAWATBHATA ROAD, KOTA

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

36(1)(viia) or in Section 80P in both cases demand will be nil. Moreover the AO assessed income considering the original return of income whereas the appellant filed revised return of income.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R supported the order of the A.O. 5. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record