VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 143(1). In the intimation issued by the CPC dated 31.05.2018 [Copy Enclosed] proposing adjustments, the adjustment for disallowance u/s 36(1)(va), amounting to Rs. 86,97,076 was not proposed. Screenshot of the same is as under: 8 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 5

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of deduction of Rs. 1,27,04,176/- u/s 80-IBA of the act as the assesseehas failed to file the return of income within due date specified in subsection (1) of Section 139 for Assessment Year 2021-22 (Due date 15-03.2022) for claiming the deduction under Chapter-VI of ITA as per the provisions of Section

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(va) OF RS. 5,99,073 OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 143(1) 1. SUBMISSION 1.1. The proviso

RAJESH MOTORS (CARS) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the above mentioned assessee's are dismissed

5(1), Jaipur\n6. Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made\nby the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is\nbeyond the scope of provisions of section

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as per the provision\r\nof section 80AC of the Act.\r\n5. 1. Before moving further, let me first surface provision of section 80AC of the Act\r\nwhich comes into force from 01/04/2018. The provision of section 80AC is as under\r\n:-\r\n[Deduction not to be allowed unless return

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)

1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.53,24,330/-. In such return, the assessee did not claim speculation loss of Rs. 69,93,450/-. Such return was, however, revised under Section 139(5) on 29.11.2006. The Assessing Officer disallowed

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails. 5

TELECRATS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance made u/s.36(1)(va) on account of appellant's failure to pay the employee's contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per section 36(1)(va) is strictly in accordance with law and tenable on facts and is therefore, fully confirmed. Appellant's Grounds on this issue fails. 5

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

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

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

5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee might have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search assessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee] “ 8.4 PCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC)wherein, it was held as under

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)

5. Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) Squarely Applies Under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), if the assessee:  Fails to offer an explanation, or  Offers one which is found to be false, or  Fails to substantiate the explanation with evidence, then the amount added or disallowed

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowing the amount of Rs 6,98,230/- under section 143 sub-section 1. It is trite that under section 143 sub-section 1 clause a, prima facie adjustments are permissible only in respect of claims, the incorrectness of which is apparent from information in the return. Debatable claims are not liable to such prima facie adjustments, which are permissible

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE, JAIPUR, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. NAVRATAN VIDHA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result appeal filed by the Department is dismissed and the C

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

section 11(5) r.w.s. 13(1)(d). For this purpose reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT vs. Maa Vaishnav Education Society (2013) 91 DTR 166 (MP) (PB 76-79) Assessee is registered society which provides education by running colleges.AO disallowed

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

section\n271(1)(c) of the Act.\n8.\nWe have heard both the parties and perused the materials available\non record. Vide Ground no 1 & 2 the assessee challenges the levy of\npenalty of Rs.4,04,481/-. The brief facts related to the levy of this penalty is\nthat the assessee there was an action of search and seizure action

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

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

5 in assessment year 2004-05 in respect of cash found in previous year relevant to assessment year 2007-08, merely on presumption that assessee might have been in possession of cash throughout period covered by search assessments - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]\"\n8.4 PCIT vs. Trisha Krishnan [2019] 111 taxmann.com 97 (SC)wherein, it was held as under

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act so as to substantiate the claim as applicable as per the provisions under section 80AC of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5

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)

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the Audit Report u/s 143(1)(a)(iv). The same is decided against the assessee company by the NFAC. 2. SUBMISSION 2.1. The adjustment made while processing the return of income is illegal because the case of the assessee company does not fall under 143(1)(a)(iv). 2.2. Section 143(1)(a)(iv) 5

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

disallowed on the principal of lack of\ncommercial expediency.\n10. The funds of the trust have not been deposited or invested in the specified\nforms/modes/assets as prescribed u/s 11(5) of the Act. As such, there is a violation\nof provisions of section 13(1

TAB INDIA GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

Disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading “C.-Deductions in respect of certain income”, if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which