M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 1

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

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

disallowance of Rs. 3,42,412/- made by Ld. AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be deleted.’’ 4.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4.7 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench noted during the course of hearing that

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)

B. Cases Supporting Disallowance under Section 14A PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.)Ltd. Citation: [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Delhi HC) Held:Even if no disallowance was made by the assessee, disallowance under Section 14A is mandatory where exempt income exists. Backs Revenue’s stand on 14A. CIT v. State Bank of Patiala RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

b) be allowed unless such sum has actually been paid in cash or to by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode on or before the due date as defined in the explanation below Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the same

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

b) be allowed unless such sum has actually been paid in cash or to by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode on or before the due date as defined in the explanation below Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the same

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

b) be allowed unless such sum has actually been paid in cash or to by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode on or before the due date as defined in the explanation below Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the same

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)

b) be allowed unless such sum has actually been paid in cash or to by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode on or before the due date as defined in the explanation below Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the same

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

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

b) provided details of contribution received from employees for various funds as referred to in section 36(1)(va). Thus, only factual reporting, which was mandated, was done and no opinion was expressed regarding the disallowance. Otherwise also no disallowance can be made on the basis of mere reporting in Audit Report. The disallowance can be made only

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.29.03.2019 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

SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

42,30,170/- which was declared in the revised return. Since the assessee paid the taxes u/s 115BBE of the IT Act, 1961 on the 13 Shankar Lal Ludhani undisclosed income detected during the course of survey and since the same was paid after the end of the relevant previous year therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act were

SODHANI SWEET PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

b) be allowed unless such sum has actually been paid in cash or to by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode on or before the due date as defined in the explanation below Clause (va) of sub-section (1) of Section 36, and where such payment has been made otherwise than in cash, the same

RAWAT BAL VIDHA NIKETAN SAMITTEE,JAIPUR vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

section 13\n(1)(c)(ii) and 13(1)(d) and was thus not entitled to any benefits as provided u/s 11\nof the Act.\n7. It is noted that the nature of activities and transactions in the current year are\nsimilar to those in the immediately preceding year. As such, there is no case for\nallowing benefit of section

RSD CONTAINERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed interest paid by the appellant to these companies and claimed as a business expenditure. This all shows that the ld. AO was having pre conceived notion for making addition in the income of the assessee. The way which he has followed 20 RSD Containers Pvt Ltd. vs ITO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not valid

LOVELY PROMOTERS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

disallowing loss incurred by the assessee in the 16 Lovely promoters Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT transaction on stock exchange and addition of Rs. 2,19,763/- u/s. 69C of the Act by alleging that such expenses ought to be incurred on accommodation entry of loss. 7. The said order of the AO was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), Jaipur

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

b). No doubt, many of these decisions also dealt with Section 36(va) with its explanation. However, the primary consideration in all the judgments, cited by the assessee, was that they adopted the approach indicated in the ruling in Alom Extrusions. As noticed 14 ITANo.2&212/JPR/202 2 MayurUniquotersLtd. V, previously, AlomExtrutions did not consider the fact of the introduction

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

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

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

42\npara held that\n“11. In the instant case, the notice initiating the penalty proceedings talks about\ninitiation of penalty proceedings U/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of undisclosed\nincome of the specified previous year. However, while passing the penalty\nproceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected in the\npenalty order that the assessee