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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. 20.4. Further, the assessee has made investment in the mutual funds from the cash credit account maintained with HDFC Bank. HDFC bank has charged a total interest of Rs. 78,56,936/- for the year under consideration. Hence, the disallowance cannot be Rs. 90,14,795/- which exceeds the amount of interest itself

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)

41,42,000/-, in Para 11 of the assessment order, no penalty proceedings has been imitated with reference to this disallowance and therefore when AO has not recorded any satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings in respect of RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR disallowance of CSR expenses, the penalty imposed on this disallowance

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

41 & 42/Agra/2021 dated 14-6-2021(Para – 18 26) Further it is submitted that for bringing clarity on the issue the Finance Bill, 2021 proposed to add an Explanation – 2 to section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation – 5 to section 43B specifically to disallow

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 & 42/Agra/2021 dated 14-6-2021(Para – 18 26) Further it is submitted that for bringing clarity on the issue the Finance Bill, 2021 proposed to add an Explanation – 2 to section 36 (1) (va) and Explanation – 5 to section 43B specifically to disallow

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) is as under: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.31.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section\n143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, therefore, the adjustments so made are\nbad in law and should be deleted.\"\n3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee\nis engaged in the business of educational publication. For the\nimpugned assessment year, return of income was filed admitting\ntotal income of Rs.5,41

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u.s. 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 should be made. This fact can be easily verifiable from the Balance Sheet available before ld FAO. Ld PCIT has not specifically pointed out any credible defects in that. The ld. AO satisfied himself about the genuineness of the 27 Career Point Limited, Kota. explanation of assessee. When the legislature has empowered

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/08/2021. ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed under section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16/08/2021. ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowance made U/s 143(1) of the Act byCPC on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employees’ contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section 36(1) (va) isstrictly in accordance with law and clearly comes under the prima facieadjustments as envisaged U/s 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Act. 7. We have heard

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41,23,306\n= 45,13,413 + 13,05,279 (1% of annual average of opening and\nclosing balances of total investment)\n= 58,18,6692/-\nThus, the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 58,18,692/- as proposed to\nbe made by Id. PCIT by apportioning interest in the ratio of Total\nInvestments to Total Assets is not correct

SOHAN LAL TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD1(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

41 & 42/Agr/2021 dated 14.06.2021) wherein also the issue was exactly similar that the AO while processing the return made disallowance of contribution received from employees which was deposited lately than prescribed dates in respective statute but deposited prior to the scheduled date of filing return u/s 139(1). The matter was carried in appeal before

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

41,855/-: Disallowance of expenses claimed under the head of business promotion; • Rs. 3,69,334/-: Disallowance of interest expense on the loan given; • Rs. 5,00,181/-: Disallowance of Revenue expenditure on building construction, • Rs. 34,95,585/-: Disallowance of alleged unverifiable salary expenses. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon’ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

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)

disallowance u/s 40A(2)(a) is not applicable to persons not covered u/s 40A(2)(b). The persons covered,when the assessee is an individual as in the present case, under section 40A(2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are as follows: i. where the assessee is an individual any relative of the assessee. Section 2(41