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)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.31.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IB by\nholding that assessee had made wrong claim of deduction u/s 80IB-\nAO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on ground of furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income by assessee- CIT(A) deleted penalty imposed\nby AO u/s 271(1)(c)—Held, AO passed order under section 271(1)(c

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

c) of the Act in a mechanical manner as the appellant did not furnish any inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves the right to add, amend and alter the grounds on or before the hearing. 3. The fact as culled out from the record is that the assessee has filed his e-return of Income for the Assessment

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

c) of Sub-rule (1) of rule 46A the appellate authority is empowered to allow the assessee to produce additional evidence where the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence during assessment proceedings. The facts of the appellant's case are quite similar to the facts of the cases cited supra and the ratio laid down therein

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

41,03,200/-. The AO in his order assessed the\nincome of the assessee at Rs.5,61,08,400/- after making\ndisallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 16,46,879\n(i.e. Rs.15,51,701/- towards PF and Rs. 95,178/- towards ESI) due\nto the fact that contribution of EPF/ESI of employees contribution\nwas

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation.\nThe assessee filed the appeal before the Id. CIT(A)-4, Jaipur which\nwas disposed off vide order 04-04-2018 by the Id. CIT(A). After giving the\neffect of the above order, the assessed income was reduced to\nRs.1,05,94,050/- which was as declared in the revised return of income\nfiled

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

c) the law to bring certainty in the issue. It is proposed to add another Explanation to section 36(1)(va) clarifying that provision of section 43B does not apply and deemed to never have been applied for the purpose of determining the "due date" under this clause; and amend Section 43B, by inserting Explanation 5 to the said section

RUPESH TAMBI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Partly allowed

1(c) of section 271AAB\nof the IT Act, 1961 @ 30% in above said additional income.\n3.\nThat the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of\ngrounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.\nFacts of the case\nThis in response to your notice dated 07-08-2023 issued u/s 271AAB of the IT\nAct

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallow said payments under section 40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c

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 - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not Credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it\nwas an inadvertent error on part of accountant Tribunal, thus, set aside\nimpugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no\nsubstantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved\nto be upheld - Whether Special leave

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it\nwas an inadvertent error on part of accountant Tribunal, thus, set aside\nimpugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no\nsubstantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved\nto be upheld - Whether Special leave

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it\nwas an inadvertent error on part of accountant Tribunal, thus, set aside\nimpugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no\nsubstantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved\nto be upheld - Whether Special leave

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it\nwas an inadvertent error on part of accountant Tribunal, thus, set aside\nimpugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no\nsubstantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved\nto be upheld - Whether Special leave

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance qua\nTDS on account of non-deposit of same with Government, Tribunal opined that it\nwas an inadvertent error on part of accountant Tribunal, thus, set aside\nimpugned penalty order - High Court by impugned order held that, on facts, no\nsubstantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order and, thus, same deserved\nto be upheld - Whether Special leave

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 the employees contribution to by clarifying that provisions of section 43B shall not apply

AMBA TECH ENGINEERING,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

41 & 42/Agr/2021 Date of Judgement/Order: 14/06/2021 Related A.Y.: 2018-19 and A.Y. 2019-20 held as under:- “28 From the aforesaid judgment, we find that irrespective of the fact that deduction in respect of sum payable by employer contribution was involved, but Court did not restrict observations, findings and declaration of law to that context but looking to the objective

RAM KISHORE MEENA, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, KOTA vs. MANGALAM CEMENT LTD, MORAK, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

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

41,02,253/-. In respect of all the additions made by the AO except on disallowance made out of certain expenses, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. After the order of CIT(A)/ ITAT, most of the additions were deleted except that disallowance of Rs. 3,72,43,045/- out of compensation