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

disallowable the bench\nnoted as on 31.03.2019 Rs.1,72,47,207/- was outstanding and the\nassessee paid Rs.1,30,43,654/- on 30.10.2019 the same is allowable as\nper provision of section

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

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance is warranted and we uphold the findings of the CIT(A) and reject the ground of the Department. Ground No. 7 relates to allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b). 23. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Disallowance relating to the capital loss Department has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 361, 43,689/-, relating to the capital loss, that was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to provisions of section 2(47

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Disallowance relating to the capital loss Department has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 361, 43,689/-, relating to the capital loss, that was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to provisions of section 2(47

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Disallowance relating to the capital loss Department has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 361, 43,689/-, relating to the capital loss, that was made by the Assessing Officer, having regard to provisions of section 2(47

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

disallowing of expenses incurred on\nexempt income u/s 14A of the Act.\nDisallowance relating to the capital loss\nDepartment has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.361,\n43,689/-, relating to the capital loss, that was made by the Assessing\nOfficer, having regard to provisions of section 2(47

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

disallowing of expenses incurred on\nexempt income u/s 14A of the Act.\nDisallowance relating to the capital loss\nDepartment has also challenged the deletion of addition of Rs.361,\n43,689/-, relating to the capital loss, that was made by the Assessing\nOfficer, having regard to provisions of section 2(47

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

47 (SC) 7. On the contrary, the ld AR of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and has further submitted that the AO has disallowed the Freight Expenses of Rs. 1,44,13,853/- [30% of 4,80,46,176/-] by wrongly invoking the Section

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)

disallowance under Section 80M of the Act on the presumption that when the funds available to the assessee were both interest free and loans, the investments made would be out of the interest free funds available with the assessee, provided the interest free funds were sufficient to meet the investments. The resultant SLP of the Revenue challenging the Bombay High

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made by ld. AO for Rs. 1,46,126/- being the amount collected from employees towards contribution to welfare funds but deposited later than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT judgment

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance made by ld. AO for Rs. 1,46,126/- being the amount collected from employees towards contribution to welfare funds but deposited later than the scheduled dates as per provisions of PF Act, but deposited prior to filing the return under section 139(1) of the income Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the binding K.P. Airtech vs. DCIT judgment

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