DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

3. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in restricting the disallowance from Rs.6,99,228/- to Rs.4,81,614/- made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act without appreciating the fact that this violation of the provision of the Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act has been clearly mentioned

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallowance under section 40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

disallowed, contribution to Jaipur National University which has not been held to be application of income in view of violation of section 13(1)(c) and section 13(2)(a) of the Act, and addition to fixed Assets which have not been allowed as application of income. Taking into consideration all these issues in addition to systematic generation of surplus

GLOBAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SOCIETY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the payment was not found to excessive or unreasonable having regard to the services rendered by those persons or fair market price of the services. Even the interest paid to the specified persons was considered by the ld. CIT(A) as reasonable

RAMAKANT SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 264/Jp/2017 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ramakant Sharma, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O- Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, 1 Ward-3(5), Vimal Kunaj, Vidyut Nagar, Behind Jaipur. Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur. Pan No.: Bjrps 5130 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Vedant Agarwal (Adv) & Shri Satish Gupta (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 07/12/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jaipur Dated 05/12/2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. Lower Authorities Grossly Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Act. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Also Ld. A.O. Grossly Erred In Resuming Jurisdiction Without Serving Notice U/S 148 On The Appellant Assessee As Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Not Served On The Appellant.

disallowed in assessment order." 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through video conference in view of the prevailing situation of Covid-19 Pandemic. 3. Earlier, the present appeal of the assessee has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 02/12/2019 for want of prosecution. Against the order of the ITAT, the assessee has filed

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

45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

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

45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

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

45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

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

45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

GETTWELL HEALTH & EDUCATION SAMITI,BHARATPUR vs. CIT-EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed, therefore, file explanation of the same. Therefore, an opportunity of being heard is given to file reply of this notice on 20/01/2018 at my office situated at 3rd Floor, Kailash Heights, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.” ITA 638/JP/2018_ 7 Getwell Health & Education Samiti Vs CIT(E) As regards the income of M/s Getwell Medical Agency, we note that during

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

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 of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 of its borrowing for making investments in group companies without any commercial expediency

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

45,000/- (as against addition of Rs.90,000/-) and addition to the extent of Rs. 3,29,196/- is sustained. The ground no. 3 is partly allowed. 6. Ground No. 4 relates to the addition of Rs. 10,89,538/- on account of disallowance of contribution to PF. The AO made this disallowance after observing that contribution

M/S SILVEX & CO. (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

45,000/- (as against addition of Rs.90,000/-) and addition to the extent of Rs. 3,29,196/- is sustained. The ground no. 3 is partly allowed. 6. Ground No. 4 relates to the addition of Rs. 10,89,538/- on account of disallowance of contribution to PF. The AO made this disallowance after observing that contribution

AMIT COLONIZERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

Section 40A(3) attracted on these payment and same is disallowed. S. No. 4:- The assessee company purchased property House No. 297, Above shop No. 45

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MAN MOHAN MITTAL, BEAWAR

In the result, the cross objection so raised by the assessee is rejected

Section 145(3) of the Act and has estimated the net profit. The said findings are contained at para 5.4 and we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same in verbatim as under:- “I have gone through the assessment order, statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions carefully. As while deciding ground No. 2, I have already held

WHOLE SALE CLOTH MERCHANT ASSOCIATION ,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOTA , KOTA

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances and in law of the case, the ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in denying the exemption benefits to the assessee appellant trust as per the provisions of section 11 to 13 of the Income-tax Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred