ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

6) and 194C(7) of the Act are interrelated and since the appellant ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 43 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. did not comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act, the amount paid to the contactors is liable for disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

6) and 194C(7) of the Act are interrelated and since the appellant ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 43 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. did not comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act, the amount paid to the contactors is liable for disallowance

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

6) and 194C(7) of the Act are interrelated and since the appellant ITA 977 to 979/JP/2018 & 1122/JP/2018_ 43 Zuberi Engineering Vs DCIT. did not comply with the provisions of section 194C(7) of the Act, the amount paid to the contactors is liable for disallowance

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made\nunder provisions of section 43B of the Act in respect of Goods & Service Tax payable.\nThe short contention of the assessee is that GST amounting to Rs.3,55,01,693/- has not\nbeen routed through Profit and Loss account, therefore, no disallowance

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made\nunder provisions of section 43B of the Act in respect of Goods & Service Tax payable.\nThe short contention of the assessee is that GST amounting to Rs.3,55,01,693/- has not\nbeen routed through Profit and Loss account, therefore, no disallowance

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

6. The ground no. 2 to 4 of appeal are in respect of single issue i.e. disallowance made\nunder provisions of section 43B of the Act in respect of Goods & Service Tax payable.\nThe short contention of the assessee is that GST amounting to Rs.3,55,01,693/- has not\nbeen routed through Profit and Loss account, therefore, no disallowance

M/S RAMAVTAR KRISHANAVTAR,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

Section 43(5)(e) of the Act, we set aside the orders of the lower authorities on this issue and direct the AO to treat the loss of Rs. 4,69,47,808/- in said transaction as non- speculative business loss and accordingly allow set off of the same from other business income as per law. Thus, this ground

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. M/S. AJMER VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., AJMER

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

section 43(1), Explanation 6. Thus, the actual cost to the transferee-company will be the WDV of the holding company (transferor-company). 13. The assessee based its submission relying on Maharana Mills P. Ltd. v. ITO [1959] 36 ITR 350 (SC) and Saharanpur Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 194 ITR 294 (SC). The ACIT v M/s Ajmer

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. 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

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

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)

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4- 1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

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)

disallowed under Section 43-B which, as stated above, was inserted with effect from 1-4- 1984 *** 22. It is important to note once again that, by the Finance Act, 2003, not only is the second proviso deleted but even the first proviso is sought to be amended by bringing about a uniformity in tax, duty, cess

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

6(4), Jaipur (ITA NO.63/JP/2022) vide order dated 06- 04-2022 has been disposed off by observing as under:- ‘’ 4.7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that prior to the amendment brought by the Finance Bill, 2021 in Section 36(1)(va) as well as Section