ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

40A(3) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making disallowance of Rs. 5,94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

40A(3) of 68329399 67994307 335092 Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Disallowance u/s 40 (a) (ia) 699228 217614 481614 of Income Tax Act, 1961 4. Addition u/s 68 of Income 7000000 7000000 0 Tax Act, 1961 on account of alleged bogus share capital introduced through Kolkata based companies 5. Disallowance of expenses 5516 5516 0 naming bill premium 6. Disallowance

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

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

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

7. In our opinion, there is little merit in this contention. Section 40A(3) must not be read in isolation or to the exclusion of rule 6DD. The section must be read along with the rule. If read together, it will be clear that the provisions are not intended to restrict the business activities. There is no restriction

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallowance under section 40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case

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) of the Act. As regards the payment of Rs. 50,000/- the ld. AR of the assessee not pressed the disallowance. As 10 Amit Colonizers Limited vs. ACIT regards the amount paid for an amount of Rs. 9,51,000/- accounted in the cash book page 23 of the paper book for purchase of agricultural land

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)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

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)

disallowing certain expenses debited to profit and loss statement of the appellant, being royalty expense, labour, cess, VAT composition tax and entry tax to achieve the said retention percentage. 2.2. Basis the order passed under section 92CA, the AO had completed the assessment under section 143(3) by passing an order dated 11th December 2017 by making total addition amounting

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)

disallowance which is against the provisions of section 40A(2)(a). For this reliance is placed in the following cases:- Upper India Publishing House (P.) Ltd. Vs. CIT 117 ITR 569(SC) (Case laws compilation PB 1) The question whether a particular expenditure is excessive & unreasonable or not is essentially a question of fact & unless it is first held that

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

MS SURBHI AGRAWAL ,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

40A(3), once the case of the assessee is covered under section 44AD and assessee has declared more than 8% of profit on the said turnover, then no further disallowance is called for. Alternatively he has contended that the payment in cash was made to the land owners due to business exigencies, therefore, the same is an allowable expenditure

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

7. The delay in filing appeal is approximately 20 days while the assessee-appellant remained ill for a period of 30 days and after getting well he got the appeal submission prepared within a week's time from his consultant which may be considered well within period of limitation. 3 ITA No. 359/JPR/2024 Shri Ashok Sharma vs. ACIT