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

section 32 of the Act as per prescribed rate of depreciation so provided in the Income tax Rules on such anicut facility in light of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred supra. 13 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 71. Now, coming to various decisions relied upon by the ld AR. We have carefully

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

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

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. 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

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

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

Section 13(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, and the excessive payment\nof salaries to specified persons cannot be considered for charitable purposes.\nFurther the trust has claimed a high amount of salary in the current year, which is\nexcessive and disallowable. Additionally, heavy amounts of rent have been paid to\nspecified persons, but there is no record of whether

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)

58,62,560/-. It is noted that in the assessment order, AO at Para 11, Pg 32 of the order has recorded that RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed its taxable income with respect to the above additions made to the total income

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)

58,22,106/- Other Income (P & L a/c) Rs. 6,82,91,163/- Dividend Income Rs. 2,87,80,532/- Interest Income from Gr Companies Rs. 1,23,21,610/- Interest from Bank Deposit Rs. 52,68,744/- Other loans & Advances Rs. 33,34,284/- Net Gain on sale of current investment Rs. 1,65,12,080/- Profit on sale

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

58,62,560/-. It is noted\nthat in the assessment order, AO at Para 11, Pg 32 of the order has recorded that\n\n3\nITA NO.309 & 310/JPR/2025\nRAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR\n\nthe assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealed its\ntaxable income with respect to the above additions

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

disallowed by the assessee. In the assessment order, the Ld. A.O. applied the provisions of section 14A of the Act, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and possibilities. In the assessment order in para 4.5, the Ld. clearly held that the invocation of provisions of section 14A are automatic. In this regard it is worth relying on the decision

RAJASTHAN EX-SERVICEMEN CORPORATION LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR INCOME TAX, CPC,, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

58,480/- was not made within the prescribed due date U/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT (A) has rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the AO. Further, reliance was placed on the amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2021 wherein the explanation to Section

M/S HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LTD.,PLOT NO.1, HOTEL COMPLEX, JODHPUR BARMER LINK ROAD, JAISALMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,58,973/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, is upheld. Accordingly ground No. 1 is dismissed.” M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. 10. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,58

M/S HOTEL GAUDAVAN PVT. LTD.,PLOT NO.1, HOTEL COMPLEX, JODHPUR BARMER LINK ROAD, JAISALMER vs. CPC, BENGALURU/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 3,58,973/- made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, is upheld. Accordingly ground No. 1 is dismissed.” M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. 10. During the course of hearing the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 3,58

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

58,484/-. Thereafter, a survey under section 133A of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 10th March, 2006 wherein various discrepancies were found. After the survey the assessee again revised its return of income on 28th March, 2006 declaring profit of Rs. 23,41,516/-. The assessment under section 143(3) was completed

DEEKSHA BHALA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

58,147/- 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’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

BHANWAR RAISAL,JAIPUR vs. CIT, APPEALS, CIRCLE 1 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

58,640/- 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’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

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

section 14A r.w.rule 8DD in the case of assessee and hence failed to make addition in regard to disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt income thus causing the assessment order to be erroneous & prejudicial to the interest of revenue . Therefore, the assessment order is liable to be set aside for the purpose of making fresh assessment in line with