CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, 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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section\n14A r.w.rule 8DD in the case of assessee and hence failed to make\naddition in regard to disallowance of expenditure in respect of exempt\nincome thus causing the assessment order to be erroneous &\nprejudicial to the interest of revenue . Therefore, the assessment order\nis liable to be set aside for the purpose of making fresh assessment in\nline with

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

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

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

section even though said issue did not find mention in the reasons\r\nrecorded and the notice issued under s.148. Since there was confusion\r\nprevailing with regard to the powers of the AO to assess or reassess on the\r\nissues for which no reasons were recorded, Expln. 3 came to be inserted as\r\nclarificatory. Now, after

SHASHI RAJAWAT,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NFAC , DELHI

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 81/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shashi Rajawat, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. 58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur Pan No.: Abupr 2195 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Neeraj Rathore (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Shri B.K. Gupta (Pcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 05/10/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 23/07/2021 For The A.Y. 2018-19. Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Disallowing The Pf & Esi Payments Amounting To Rs. 97,290/- Deposited Before The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year. 2. That The Order Passed By The Ld. Ao Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts. 3. That The Petitioner Craves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Or All Of The Grounds Of Appeal On Or Before The Due Date.”

58, Ambabari Shopping Centre, Ward 4(2), Ambabari, Jaipur-302023. Jaipur PAN No.: ABUPR 2195 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Rathore (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by :Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 05/10/2021 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 12/10/2021 vkns

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Section 36(1) specifically disallows the interest payment on borrowed funds taken to purchase fixed assets upto the period before put to use. Since no funds were borrowed and no interest was paid the disallowance is illegal and to be quashed. Your honour, here I want to place the decision of Hon`ble high court of Rajasthan in case

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act during the A.Y. 2014-15.” Grounds of ITA No. 824/JP/2019 A.Y. 2014-15. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs 58,78,803/- in hands of assessee company, despite of this fact that assessee company is not the shareholder

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

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

section 2(22)(e) of the Act during the A.Y. 2014-15.” Grounds of ITA No. 824/JP/2019 A.Y. 2014-15. “ 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Ld. Lower Authorities grossly erred in making and confirming addition of Rs 58,78,803/- in hands of assessee company, despite of this fact that assessee company is not the shareholder