KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowance has been made as per section 57(iii), though provisions of section 57(iii) have not been invoked specifically

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

57,989/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (Punjab) to the effect that all the borrowed funds and assessee’s own funds go into common kitty

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

57,989/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (Punjab) to the effect that all the borrowed funds and assessee’s own funds go into common kitty

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

57,989/- made by AO since the decision of ld. CIT (A) is not in conformity with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Abhishek Industries Ltd. (2006) 286 ITR 1 (Punjab) to the effect that all the borrowed funds and assessee’s own funds go into common kitty

RAMA KANT SABOO,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 7, BABA SIDDHANATHA BHAWAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowing the claim for the loss of Rs 6,91,662/- under section 57 of the Act, is upheld and the appellant

RAJ KUMAR KANDOI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

disallowed the claim of interest expenses having regard to the narrower scope of deductions eligible under section 57(i) of the Act. We thus

J.K. JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result the disallowance of interest sustained by the ld

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Was Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.11.2018

section 57(iii) of the Act. (ii) proportionate interest expenditure aggregating to Rs. 9,64,427/- due to the fact that in some cases rate of interest charged is less than rate of interest on which loan is obtained by appellant and the same is disallowed

PREM DEVI BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR, NCRB, STATUE CIRCLE, C-SCHEME

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

disallowance of interest amounting to Rs. 22,70,120/- claimed under Section 57 of the Act. 26. Brief facts relating

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 u.s. 14Aof Income Tax Act,1961 should be made.” It is clearly evident from the above reply submitted that assessee never admitted that case is covered by the provisions of section 14A of the Act and also the explanatory circular of CBDT No. 5/2014. Accordingly, this revisionary order passed u/s 263 of I. Tax Act is arbitrary assuming wrong

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

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

disallowances so made by the Assessing officer. 11. The Co-ordinate Bench in case of ITO vs. Anthelio Business Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 78 taxmann.com 203 (Mumbai) in context of deduction under section 10B relying on the aforesaid CBDT Circular has taken a similar view and it would be relevant to refer to the findings of the Co-ordinate Bench which

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

disallowed u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that rule 6DD(j) is not exhaustive of the circumstances in which the proviso to section 40A(3) is applicable and it only illustrative. The Hon’ble High Court refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Smt. Harshila Chordia

AJEET SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

57 The relevant extract of the order is provided below for ease of reference: "55.1 From the combined reading of sections 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va), the position emerges that any contribution made by the employees to any Provident Fund, Superannuation Fund, Employees' State Insurance Fund or any other fund for the welfare of such employees received

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

M/S TRADITIONAL GALLERY PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

section 36(1)(iii) and disallowance of Rs. 33,83,847/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) confirming the order of the AO, sustained the addition of Rs. 91,15,011/-. Now the assessee

SUMAN SOLANKI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

57,800/- by making addition of Rs. 42,22,723/- on account of disallowance of delayed payment of PF and ESI. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

PEE TEE TURNERS ,JAIPUR vs. NFAC , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

57,28,400/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 17.08.2020 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 6,28,972/- towards employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee

SMT. ANEESHA BAID,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

section 57(iii). Such claim of the assessee was found to be correct, resultantly, no disallowance was made while passing