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)

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee.” Issue no. 2 The contribution of employees should have been deposited as per dates prescribed in ESI/PF Act. Thus, in terms of provisions of section 36

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)

disallowance made by AO by observing as under:- “8. I view of the aforesaid, it is amply clear that even prior to insertion of Explanation 2 in section 36

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

section 36(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts\n-Assessment year 2018-19 - Assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing and\ninstallation of solar structures, filed its return for Assessment Year 2018-19,\nrevising its declared loss -During scrutiny, Assessing Officer disallowed

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowances. In terms of this scheme, Section 40 (which too starts with a non obstante clause overriding Sections 30-38), deals with what cannot be deducted in computing income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business and Profession”. Likewise, Section 40A(2) opens with a non-obstante clause and spells out what expenses and payments are not deductible

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of Rs. 6,98,230/- made by AO, CPC, for not depositing of employee's contribution to the PF and ESIC covered under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act. 2. The Hon'ble jurisdiction High

SHRI MADHOPUR KRAYA VIKRAYA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED,SHRIMADHOPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEEM KA THANA, NEEM KA THANA

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowing deduction of Rs. 4,71,247/- under section 80P(2)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law also ld. Lower authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs. 22,398/- under section 36

TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

36(1)(va), read with section 2(24) and 43B of the Income Tax Act – Employee’s contributions (PF/ESI) – High Court by impugned order held that Tribunal was correct in deleting disallowance

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee appeals and pray for justice.’’ 3.5 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 5 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2

BRAHAM PARKASH YADAV,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance u/s 43B rws Sec 36(1)(va) of the contribution of PF & ESI belated in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 2

CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI,FLAT NO. B-9, D-224, TANWAR RESIDENCY, TULSI MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

Section 43B of the Act and the CPC has disallowed the payment of ESI/PF contribution of Rs.34,17,632/0 on the ground that the same was not paid within time allowed under the respective Act. The addition has been made u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hearing.”

36(1)(vii)(a)(c) of Rs. 34,62,000/- on account of bad debts written off and applied provision of section 115JB of the Act. 2.3.1 In appellate proceedings, the Authorized Representative relied various decisions which support to assessee's own case. It is found that appellant did not appeal against disallowance made by the Assessing Officer on account

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA

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

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, VKI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

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

disallowance of Rs. 3, 9, 227 / (- i) * s accordingly deleted. 8. Ground NO.1 In this regard, the appellant has raised the ground that "In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Central Processing Centre has erred in law while processing return u/s 143(1)(a) by making an addition under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36

DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB JAIPUR vs. KANDARP TRADELINKS AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, V K I JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed,

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

disallowance of Rs. 3, 9, 227 / (- i) * s accordingly deleted. 8. Ground NO.1 In this regard, the appellant has raised the ground that "In the facts and under the circumstances of the case, Central Processing Centre has erred in law while processing return u/s 143(1)(a) by making an addition under section 2(24)(x) read with section 36