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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance can be made towards employees' contribution to provident fund & ES/C." 6. The assessee before the ld. CIT(A) also contended that the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act and has also referred to the rationale of the amendment as explained by the memorandum in the Finance Bill

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

1), the disallowance under Sec.43B is not warranted and the addition of Rs.3,43,997 is deleted. This ground is "Allowed". 8. Ground No (i) and (iv) are general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication and treated as dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is "Partly Allowed." 5. As the assessee did not find any favour

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

Section 143(1)(a). The action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the entire disallowance of Rs. 5,61,32,750/-. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A), has erred in confirming the action

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed u/s 438 or u/s 36(1)(va) of the IT Act • CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur 99 DTR 131 • CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. 363 ITR 307 • CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 366 ITR 163 • Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax v/s Rajasthan state Seed Corporation Ltd. [2016] 386 ITR 267 (Raj) • Income

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

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance u/s 143(1). The said addition so made may therefore kindly be deleted. 19. Your kind attention is also invited towards the jurisdictional ITAT Jodhpur Bench decision in the case of Mohangarah Engineers & Construction Company, Jodhpur & Others in ITA No. 59 & 60/Jodh/2021 dated 27.9.2021, in which also even after amendment made it has been held that where the amount

DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance could be made u/s 43 B or 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Court. Hon'ble Bench has also in number of cases including in appellant's own case has held that the as the explanation inserted by the Finance Bill, 2021 section

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance could be made u/s 43 B or 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Court. Hon'ble Bench has also in number of cases including in appellant's own case has held that the as the explanation inserted by the Finance Bill, 2021 section

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance could be made u/s 43 B or 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Court. Hon'ble Bench has also in number of cases including in appellant's own case has held that the as the explanation inserted by the Finance Bill, 2021 section

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)

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4- 1984 *** 22. It is important

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)

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4- 1984 *** 22. It is important

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)

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4- 1984 *** 22. It is important

AMBA TECH ENGINEERING,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- 1. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT: February 4, 2014 [2014] 366 ITR 408 (Kar) M/S ESSAE TERAOKA PVT LTD VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 2. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

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