ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

37(1), read with section 201, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nBusiness expenditure - Allowability of (Interest on delayed payment of\nTDS) Assessment year 2015-16 - Assessee paid interest on late\nsubmission of TDS and claimed said interest as deduction - Assessing\nOfficer disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

4. It is submitted that the disallowance made by the ld. AO(CPC) was not in accordance with provisions of Section 143(1). In the intimation issued by the CPC dated 31.05.2018 [Copy Enclosed] proposing adjustments, the adjustment for disallowance u/s 36(1)(va), amounting to Rs. 86,97,076 was not proposed. Screenshot of the same is as under

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)

37(1) of the Act in this case. The bench notes that section 80G(2)(iiihk) and (iiihl) specific excluded as it is evident from the extract of section 80G of the Act; Deduction in respect of donations to certain funds, charitable institutions, etc. 6580G. (1) In computing the total income of an assessee, there shall be deducted, in accordance

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

4 which are related to the one issue of disallowance u/s.\n43B of the Act.\nRecord reveals that the Id. AO CPC has disallowed the GST at Rs.\n1,30,43,384/- and Rs.64,83,823/- being the amount of service tax.\nSo far as regards the amount disallowable u/s.43B of the Act in the\nyear under consideration the bench

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

section 37(1), r.w.s. 40(a)(ii) of the Act and therefore, the amount of Rs.3,06,59,279/- claimed by the assessee as allowable deduction disallowed and added back to the income of the assessee. 3.3 During the scrutiny proceedings, the case was referred to the TPO for determination of Arm’s Length price with reference to all international

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

37 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 30,000,000 12-May-11 30,000,000 18-May11 6 44,383.56 200,000,000 20-Aug-11 200,000,000 28-Aug-11 104,826.98 8 394,520.55 120,000,000 4-Oct-11 120,000,000 7-Oct-11 67,809.29 3 88,767.12 4

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

37 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 30,000,000 12-May-11 30,000,000 18-May11 6 44,383.56 200,000,000 20-Aug-11 200,000,000 28-Aug-11 104,826.98 8 394,520.55 120,000,000 4-Oct-11 120,000,000 7-Oct-11 67,809.29 3 88,767.12 4

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

37 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 30,000,000 12-May-11 30,000,000 18-May11 6 44,383.56 200,000,000 20-Aug-11 200,000,000 28-Aug-11 104,826.98 8 394,520.55 120,000,000 4-Oct-11 120,000,000 7-Oct-11 67,809.29 3 88,767.12 4

M/S KANAK VRINDAVAN RESORTS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In fact, the disallowance is made on conjectures, surmises and suspicion. It is setteled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT. It has been further

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

4. Section 14A Disallowance – No Disallowance Made Despite Earning Exempt Income The assessee earned exempt income and had substantial investments, yet failed to make any suo motu disallowance under Section 14A.This is contrary to:  PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Del HC)  CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2018] 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC)  DCIT

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, JAIPUR vs. M/S CUROSIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act being an expense prohibited by the law. This disallowance shall be made in the hands of such pharmaceutical or allied health sector Industries or other assessee which has provided aforesaid freebees and claimed it as a deductable expense in its accounts against income. 4

M/S. AJMER ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,AJMER vs. PR.CIT, AJMER

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

37 of all expenditure incurred for the purpose of deriving the business income, and it is under that head that the interest paid on the loan taken from the bank is deducted. The net amount of interest contemplated by Section 80AB should take in the net amount arrived at after meeting the expenses deductible from that item under the provisions

SDC CONSTRUCTION,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD 1(3), JIAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

4) of the act on11.11.2019during the search and seizure action under section 132 of the income tax act, 1961 in case of M/s Skyway infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Hi-Tech Engineers, M/s RPS infra projects Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon Realty Pvt Ltd, M/s Relcon infra projects Ltd and Shri Deepak Jain on 10.11.2019, Lateron Mr Deepak Jain retracted from

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

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)

4 that wherein it has been stated that similar disallowance of prior period expenses was made in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2014- 15 which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) and as the Revenue has not filed any appeal against such disallowances Revenue should remain consistent on their stand as they have not challenged the decision