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, by invoking section 14A r.w.r 8D, of Rs. 24,90,000/-. It is submitted that the provisions of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act allow a deduction for interest on 24 ITA NO. 201(6

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHARATPUR vs. M/S. JAGDAMBE STONE COMPANY, BHARATPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) read with section 194C of the Act. IN this regard, he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. Once the conditions of Section 194C(6) is satisfied, the liability to deduct the TDS would cease and accordingly, application of section

OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure 82[or increase ill income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return

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)

6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Copy of WS to CIT(A) 1-15 2 Copy of IT Return with computation of total income 16-21 3 Copy of Form 3CB-3CD i.e. Audit report filed

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)

6. Section 143(1)(a)(iii) i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(iii), only disallowance of loss

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowed a sum of Rs. 86,905!- being employees contribution to PF / ESI as the appellant failed to deposit the same within due dates specified in the respective Acts by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) nw.s. 2(24)(x) and provisions of section 43B are not applicable to the employees contribution to PF/ESI. To conclude, all the grounds

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

iii) disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year forwhich set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; (iv) disallowance of expenditure [or increase in income] indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance

THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

6. Decision 6.1 The statement of facts grounds of appeal, and the order appealed against, written submissions explanations have been thoroughly examined. The central issue for adjudication among all the grounds of appeal raised pertains to the sole issue of denying the deduction claimed as per section 80P of the Act while processing the return of Income under 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)

6 BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. VS ITO,WARD 1(1), JAIPUR not complied with. The order passed is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, 1.8. Provisions of 1 and 2nd proviso to section 143(1) violated and Principles of Natural Justice breached 1.9. The order passed in Blatant Violation of Principles of Natural Justice is void

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to examine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing disallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at Rs.79.76 lakhs) as against that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to examine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing disallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at Rs.79.76 lakhs) as against that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act, we are constrained to remand the matter back to his file to examine the matter afresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Revenue has challenged the action of the Id CIT(A) in curtailing disallowance out of interest paid to Rs.70,23,000/- (originally confirmed at Rs.79.76 lakhs) as against that

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

1,00,00,000/-. As Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore loan was taken for the purpose of business, income is shown under the head profit and gains of business and profession the disallowance of alleged excess interest as per provision of section 57(iii) is not correct. When the matter was carried to ld. CIT(A), though he observed that

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)

6. Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and,therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case

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)

6. Another argument taken before us is that the disallowance made by the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act is beyond the scope of provisions of section 143(1(a) of the Act and,therefore, cannot be sustained. 7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case

TRANSINDIA NONWOVENS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance in apparent from the details filed. These details have been filed by the appellant itself and that processing has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section has been done without any human interface. In view of the provisions of Section 36(1)(va), the details entered by the appellant are automatically detected

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

iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory\r\nlimit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or\r\nratio or fraction\r\n7.1 A joint reading of the above provisions makes it evident that the claim of\r\ndeduction under section 80P of the Act cannot be allowed the assessee

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

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

III of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of the year in which the search is initiated under section 132 or requisition is made under section 132A of the income-tax Act.” Addition of this proviso in the Finance Act, 2003 further makes it clear that such a provision was necessary to provide for surcharge in the cases