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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

42,336 931.88 9% 389 70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part

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)

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 14A of the Act. The\nonly relevant factor is the investments in such assets which have\nresulted or would result in to earning of such income which would\nnot form part of total income. However, neither the assessee\noffered any such disallowance suomoto in the computation of\nincome nor the AO made any disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule

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

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

section 139 (1), then the same cannot be disallowed in view of the binding precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. SBBJ, 99 DTR 131 (Raj.). The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the disallowance by purportedly following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dated 13th March, 2018 in case

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

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)

42,22,857/- was made. The AO has not recorded his satisfaction as to how the expenditure disallowed by the assessee of 629878/- towards administrative expenses is not reasonable. Further we find that the assessee has demonstrated by placing sufficient material on record that no borrowed funds were utilized for making investment and wherefrom the exempt income is earned

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

42,50,000/- was disallowed invoking the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act. We therefore find that the impugned

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

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

42,22,857/- was made. The AO has not recorded his satisfaction as to how the expenditure disallowed by the assessee of 629878/- towards administrative expenses is not reasonable. Further we find that the assessee has demonstrated by placing sufficient material on record that no borrowed funds were utilized for making investment and wherefrom the exempt income is earned

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of interest of Rs.89,42,24,331/- was made\nu/s 36(1)(iii) instead of under section 14A of the Income

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. SHRI KAPIL TANEJA, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 14A read with Rule 8D(ii) & (iii) and made the disallowance of Rs. 42,46,082/-. Thus the AO has disallowed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

Section 14A would apply even if no dividend was earned by assessee from investments in shares. 3 (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in restricting the addition of Rs.97,63,413/- made by the AO on account of 3 & CO No. 09/JPR/2024 DCIT vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta disallowance of interest paid

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)

42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi: “19. The object of Section 43B, as originally enacted, is to allow certain deductions only on actual payment. This is made clear by the non obstante Clause contained in the beginning of the provision, coupled with

MOUNT SHIVALIK INDUSTRIES LTD.,ALWAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

In the result the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of Rs. 42,86,372/- under section 40(a)(ia) on account of non-deduction of TDS. 2. That

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

42,00,000 has been paid to Smt. Santosh Devi for purchase of land and disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section

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

42,00,000 has been paid to Smt. Santosh Devi for purchase of land and disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section

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

42,00,000 has been paid to Smt. Santosh Devi for purchase of land and disallowed the same stating that it is in violation of Section

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

42. The rationale for introduction of Section 43B was explained by this court in M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi: “19. The object of Section 43B, as originally enacted, is to allow certain deductions only on actual payment. This is made clear by the non obstante Clause contained in the beginning of the provision, coupled with