GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4 Gangaur Exports Private Ltd. vs. PCIT-2 completing the assessment the faceless assessing officer has allowed the deduction under section 80G of the Act amounting to "67,50,000 being CSR expenditure added back from the total income. As per the explanation 2 to sub section (1) of section 37, any expenditure incurred by an assessee on the activities

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty 3 ITA Nos. 1373(4)-18/JP/2018 Smt. Jyoti Agrawal, Kota. order dated 27st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 27.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 27th June, 2018 has 3 ITA Nos. 1384(4)/JP/2018 Smt. Indira Agrawal, Kota. levied the penalty under section 271AAB

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

SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

37 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO the year in which it is sold. In terms of S. 54(2), however, the assessee may at his discretion invest the capital gains before the filing of return of income to avoid incidence of tax. Section 54(2) inter alia specifies an alternative in the form of deposit under 'capital gain accounts

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, 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

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

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

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

SHRI VIVEK SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance. The penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee filed his reply to show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The AO was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee and levied the penalty @ 10% of the surrendered income amounting to Rs. 61,95,020/- vide order dated

SHRI KAMAL SETHIA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance. The penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act were initiated vide show cause notice dated 29.11.2016. The assessee filed his reply to show cause notice vide letter dated 30.12.2016. The AO was not impressed with the reply filed by the assessee and levied the penalty @ 10% of the surrendered income amounting to Rs. 59,44,219/- vide order dated

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