ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- u/s 80-IBA of the act as the assesseehas failed to file the return of income within due date specified in subsection (1) of Section 139 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (Due date 15-03.2022) for claiming the deduction under Chapter-VI of ITA as per the provisions of Section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EXEMPTIONS,CIRCLE,JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

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

4) as how the provisions of section 13(3) are applicable. In fact while making the addition of Rs. 60,60,000/- on account of advance for purchase of land of Rs. 5,05,00,000/- to Perennial Real Estate Pvt Ltd the relevant 23 ACIT vs. Global Institute of Technology provisions of section 13(3) have not been cited

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 42,00,000/- U/s 40A(3) of the Act.” 3 ITA No. 250/JP/2019 & 2 Ors. M/s Skyways Township Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT Grounds of ITA No. 251/JP/2019 A.Y. 2015-16. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition

ASHOK SHARMA,KOTA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 - KOTA, KOTA

4\nyears of the end of the assessment year\nneeds to be quashed/set-aside.\n3. After 1% disallowance already made\nu/s 143(3), a 100% disallowance made\nagain on recommendation of the audit\nparty u/s 147 making the total\ndisallowance to 101% (i.e. more than\n100%) of the expenditure debited to P &\nL/c. It is, thus, clear that the\nrespondent

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

3, has forwarded the following submissions for consideration with the\nprayer that the order passed by the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act is not justified and\nthe proceedings initiated by the ld. PCIT deserves to be quashed.\n\"GROUND NO. LD. PCIT ERRED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER\nSECTION 263\nSUBMISSIONS\n1. Disallowance under Section 14A, read with Rule

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same is disallowed. S. No. 4:- The assessee company purchased property House

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

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

3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in the quantum proceeding the claim of cost of improvement of Rs. 4,19,720/- being the interest capitalized by the assessee was disallowed. Against that disallowance for claim of cost of expenditure the assessee did not prefer any appeal accepted that disallowance. Based on that

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

disallowed.\n6. That, the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the fact that that the\namount of Rs. 13,92,83,709/- on which TDS was deducted is not entirely\nthe amount of payment of foreign interest. Because out of Rs.\n13,92,83,709/-, an amount of Rs 11,70,05,416 was paid as a Fees for\nTechnical Services

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

4) of Section 80- IB as well. It would mean that total deduction under Section 80-IB as well as 80-IC is for a period of 10 years. (Emphasis Supplied) 6.6 In view of the above, it is clear that once the initial assessment year is identified he appellant is to get the deduction under section 801C

MURLI DHAR UPADHYAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(3), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, stands allowed

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

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO further noted that assessee made payments of Rs. 55,34,000/-on bank holidays which are excluding the purview of sec 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The AO thus disallowed the payments of Rs. 59.30 lacs in violation of provisions of sec 40A(3

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), KOTA , RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

3)/44/2009-IT (A-1)] DATED 20-9-2010.\n1. Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for a deduction from the income of\ncooperative societies referred to in that section.\n2. As Regional Rural Banks (RRB) are basically corporate entities (and not cooperative\nsocieties), they were considered to be not eligible for deduction under section 80P when\nthe

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

3) [*] (3A) [ (3B) (3C) (3D) [ (4) (5) As per section 37 of the Act, any expenditure (not being expenditure of the nature described in sections 30 to 36 and not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed

INCOME TAX OFFICEER, WARD-2(2), KOTA, RAWATBHATA ROAD vs. HITKARI VIDYALAYA SHAKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI LIMITED, BHATAPARA, KOTA

3)/44/2009-IT (A-1)] DATED 20-9-2010.\n1. Section 80P of the Income-tax Act, 1961 provides for a deduction from the income of\ncooperative societies referred to in that section.\n2. As Regional Rural Banks (RRB) are basically corporate entities (and not cooperative\nsocieties), they were considered to be not eligible for deduction under section 80P when\nthe

JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

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

3 or section 3A or an institution notified under section 46 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 (63 of 1951). Section 46 of State Financial Corporation Act reads as under: Power to apply Act to certain financial institutions in existence at commencement of Act.— (1) The Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. NISHA JAIN, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

4) and that recorded under Section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act. 41. This distinction was noticed by this Court in Dhingra Metal Works (supra). The Court there referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003] 263 ITR 101/129 Taxman 416 and of the Madras High Court in S. Khader Khan

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

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

3 raised by assessee and therefore, the same is dismissed. 21. Ground No. 4 relates to exclusion of deduction under section 80IA in computing Book Profit under section 115JB of the Act. 22. Brief facts of this case that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s. 80IA on various infrastructure facilities and power undertakings amounting