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 is called for under section 40A(3) of the Act and the same is directed to be deleted. In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 15. In view of the above facts and circumstances as well as by respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate

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

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. 5:- The assessee company purchased land in village

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS OM METALS SPML INFRAPROJECTS PVT LTD), JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance could be made under Section 40A(2)(b). (iii) ITAT Mumbai in Indo Bearing Traders Vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 7119/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2012 (Copy at case law Paper book page 145- 152) 2.4 It is clear that the objective of Section 40A(2) is to check evasion of tax through excessive or unreasonable payments to the associates

WORSHIP INFRAPROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CEIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance could be made under Section 40A(2)(b). (iii) ITAT Mumbai in Indo Bearing Traders Vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai, ITA No. 7119/Mum/2011 dated 10.10.2012 (Copy at case law Paper book page 145- 152) 2.4 It is clear that the objective of Section 40A(2) is to check evasion of tax through excessive or unreasonable payments to the associates

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

section 147\nThe 2nd last para of the 1st page of the Jurisdictional AO's report is a para numbered (i),\nwhich deals with the limitation aspect, does not anywhere contradicts the proviso to\nsection 147 that restricts the ld. AO to take action u/s 147 after a lapse of four years if the\nassessment u/s 143(3) has earlier

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 46,36,775/- u/s 40A(2)(b) of IT Act, 1961. 2. The ld. CIT (A) NFAC has erred on facts

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

40A(3), 43B etc., of the Act." The use of the word 'etc.' clearly denotes that it will apply to similarly placed disallowances and disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act is also disallowance due to non-deduction of withholding tax as is contemplated by Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Hence the CBDT circular will be applicable

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

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

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section

LALITA KUMARI,ANTA DISTRICT BARAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section the disallowance of interest has been made. In his submission the assessee has presumed that this disallowance has been made u/s 40A (2)(b). It is reiterated that assessee had completely ignored the observation of the AO in respect of investment of the assessee in FDR which is much above the capital of the assessee. The excess of fixed

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

40A of the Income-tax Act, for sub-section (3), the following sub-sections shall be substituted, with effect from the 1st day of April, 2009, namely:- "(3) Where the assessee incurs any expenditure in respect of which a payment or aggregate of payments made to a person in a day, otherwise than by an account payee cheque drawn

PRAKASH CHAND VARINDANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CERTAL CIRLCE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

5,54,770/-. The\ncases have been selected for scrutiny and notice generated through\nsystem u/s 143(2) on 22.09.2018 and served upon the assessee by Speed\npost, by hand and delivered through e-filing portal. The assessee is\nengaged in the wholesale and retail business in the name of M/s Kanhiya\nLal Prakash Chand.\nAs the assessee during

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)

5. Section 143(1)(a)(ii) 17 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) only an incorrect claim which is apparent from any information in the return of income can be adjusted. ii. Incorrect claim has been defined in the Explanation to section 143(1) as under: “Explanation

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 40A(3) are not applicable to the facts of the case.\nThereafter, assessee received assessment order, whereby addition of\nRs.2,68,19,218/- was made u/s 69C of the Act. It is pertinent to note here\nthat in show cause notice dated 9.12.2019 issued prior to completion of\nassessment, no disallowance was proposed in this regard and\ndisallowance

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

40A(9) etc.\nHowever, in the case of the assessee, the auditor has not reported any\namount of disallowance.\n8. Reliance is placed on the following decisions in favour of the\nassesssee:\nS.No.\nName of case\nFindings\n1\nParis Elysees India\nPrivate Limited,\nJaipur v/s Deputy\nCommissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle 7,\nJaipur (ITAT Jaipur)\nITA No.\n357/JPR/2022\nCase

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

section 40A (2) (b) of the Act so they are to be taken at arms length price as section 92BA (i) covers the same field as section 40A (2) (b). That in the case of Vipul Y Mehta Vs. ACIT (Ahmedabad) ITA No. 869/Ahd/2010, the CIT (A) relied upon the judgement of Omkarmal Gaurishankar Vs. I.T.O