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 was computed under section 14A r.w.r 8D and confirmed an addition of Rs. 24.90 lakhs (i.e. proportionate expenditure of Rs. 22.03 lakhs and half percent of average investments of Rs. 2.86 lakhs) and directed the AO to delete the balance addition of Rs. 35,67,55

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

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

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

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

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

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

55,810 on delayed payment of TDS not eligible for deduction\nunder Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37.\n•\nExcess MAT Credit, pertaining to AY 2016-17, Rs. 96,13,814 erroneously\nallowed.\nEach of such issues is now being taken up by us, in the ensuing paragraphs.\n2.5.1 Disallowance

FEDERATION OF RAJASTHAN TRADE AND INDUSTRY,JAIPUR vs. ITO-EXEMPTION WARD-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

55(2)(b) (i) & (ii) of Income Tax Act. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner Appeals has grossly erred in not allowing the opportunity of personal hearing on 29.12.2023 considering the fact that the Notice U/s 250 was issued to file the written submission on or before 28.12.2023 and further passed the order on 29.12.2023 as such rule of principle

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

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

55,037/- the assessee was asked show cause as to why disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the IT Rules, 1962 should not be made. In that matter, the assessee filed a reply on 16.02.2021. Ld. AO considered that reply of the assessee but found that same was not tenable as the assessee had made

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed u/s 14A /\nRule 8 D\nThus in view of above, it is evidently clear that the investment made in\nthe share capital of various companies was with a sole motive of\nobtaining controlling interest in them, earing of any dividend or capital\ngain as a motive was never in sight, and therefore such strategic\ninvestment were outside the scope

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

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

disallowance could be made. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Gurdas Garg vs. CIT [2015] 63 taxmann.com 289. It was submitted that the provisions of section 40A(3) have been enacted as one of the measures for countering evasion of tax. The provisions were enacted to enable

CLASSIC AIRCON,INDIA vs. DCIT CPC, INDIA

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Cit(A)-Iii, Jaipur Was Rejected /Dismissed Vide Order Dated 20.09.2021 & Same Was Served Upon The Appellant On 20.09.2021 Itself Through E-Mail. Classic Aircon Vs. Dcit, Cpc

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee

GALAXY CONCAB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

SULEKHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT (APPEALS), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

GURU NANAK WORKSHOP SERVICES PVT. LTD.,PLOT NO.4, NEAR AIRPORT, JHALAWAR ROAD, KOTA vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

SARDA INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

M/S DIWAKARS EMPLOYMENT PVT. LTD.,17, SUNDER VIHAR, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

KAMAL KISHORE SARDA,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance

SULEKHA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT APPEALS , NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

55,353/- made by the A.O. on account of late payments towards EPF and ESI under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’), however, before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance