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

40A(3) has been amended to provide for disallowance of 20% of the expenditure incurred in cash and Rule 6DD(j) was omitted. Thereafter, by virtue of another amendment, disallowance under section

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.3:- The assessee company purchased agricultural land of Rs. 9089000/- from

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 can be made by applying the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) as there is no question of diversion

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 can be made by applying the provisions of Section 40A(2)(b) as there is no question of diversion

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

disallowance in contravention\nof section 40A(3) of the Act. Here, no estimation theory was applied by the AO.\n5.5

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 40A(2)(b), we noticed that for making any disallowance under this section, the AO is under obligation to determine

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

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

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

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)

Section 40A(3) only empowers the assessing officer to disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance under Section 40A(3) is unjustified and should be\nreversed.\n3.\nThe salary disallowance is without merit and should

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 Income Tax Act. It is pertinent to note\nhere that in show cause notice dated 9.12.2019 issued prior to completion of\nassessment, no disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance:\nclause 21(b)- Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),\nclause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3),\nclause

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)

disallowance: Clause 21(b)-Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),  Clause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3),  Clause

M/S. OM SHIV PROPERTIES PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD -6(1), JAIPUR

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed, which reads as under :- Application U/s 5 of Limitation Act, 1963. 1. That the appellant is submitting appeal against order passed by CIT (A) vide order dt. 28.11.2016 wherein addition made in disallowance of cash payment of Rs. 2046000/- is disallowed u/s 40A

DIGAMBER SINGH & SONS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,KUMHER vs. ITO, WD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowing under section 40A(3) of the Act and Rs.86,126.0 on Account of disallowing of development Expenses consequent upon

ITO , NCRB JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

section 40A(3) of IT Act 1961. 5 ITO vs. Prakash Agarwal 4. The further in addition to the payments for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.12.2016 calculated such payments for the further period 01.01.2017 to 31.03.2017 on average presumptive Basis. 5. Thus the AO made disallowance

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

40a(ia) of the Act\n(iii) disallowance of ESI & PF for an amount of Rs. 4,93,814/- required to be\ndisallowed asthe provisions of u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act.\n(iv)& (v) Id. PCIT noted that the assessee disclosed investment in stock and\ntherefore, considering the provisions of section