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 under section 14A of the Act. • CIT v. Hero Cycles Limited (323 ITR 518)(P&H) • CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd (319 ITR 204) • CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd 223 Taxman 130 (Guj) • CIT v. Shivam Motors (P) Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 63

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

disallowable under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs. 1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense

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

disallowable under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs. 1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense

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

disallowable under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs. 1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense

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

disallowable under section 40(a) (ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs. 1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense

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)

63,25,69,782 7,26,90,293 69,34,83,925 It was also submitted that no exempt income has been earned during the assessment year under appeal so as to attract any disallowance under section

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

disallowable under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and adding back Rs.1,63,78,648/- claimed as expense towards

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance can be made under section 43B, specifically excludes extension of such scope to employee's contribution governed by section 36(1)(va) - Held, yes [Para 19] [In favour of revenue]" 6.6 The head note of decision of ITAT , Delhi in case of Eagle .Trans Shipping & Logistics (India) ) Ltd. [2019] 109 taxmann.com 426 (Delhi - Trib.) is as under: "Section

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)

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have been passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO is clearly barred by limitation. 6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of income on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

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

Section 143(1) of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of jurisdictional Tribunal in case of MurlidharHassani vs. DCIT [ITA No. 139/JP/2021] and Hon’ble Hyderabad Tribunal Crescent Roadways Private Limited vs. DCIT [ITA No. 1952/HYD/2018 at page no. 63 to 65 of PB. Further, reliance is placed on Hon’ble Delhi ITAT

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

section 275(1)(a). Hence the penalty order should have\nbeen passed before 31.10.2018 and therefore the penalty order dt.29.03.2019 passed by AO\nis clearly barred by limitation.\n\n6. On merits it is submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the AO for concealment of\nincome on two issues namely disallowance of CSR expenses and disallowance

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 40A(3) does not in blanket manner mandate disallowance in respect of all situations where cash payment has been made. It was submitted that the cash payments were made on the specific condition put up by the seller and they being resident of Jaipur or belonging to the same family does not make any difference. In this regard

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

In the result, the ground No

disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act would qualify for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. This view was taken by the courts in the following cases: • Income-tax Officer - Ward 5(1) v. Keval Construction [2013] 33 taxmann.com 277 (Guj.) • Commissioner of Income-tax-IV, Nagpur v. Sunil Vishwambharnath Tiwari [2016] 63

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

section 14A r.w.r.8D and thereby Rs. 23,20,009/- was disallowed u/s 14A of the IT Act and added back to the taxable income of the assessee. 10. When the assessee carried that matter before the ld. CIT(A) based on the various case laws cited there in ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition u/s. 14A to the extent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

Section 14A would apply even if no dividend was earned by assessee from investments in shares. 3 (iii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is justified in restricting the addition of Rs.97,63,413/- made by the AO on account of 3 & CO No. 09/JPR/2024 DCIT vs. Naresh Kumar Gupta disallowance

ASIA SEWING MACHINE MFRS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

63,113/- 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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

disallowance under section 24(a) in pursuant to the revision order passed under section 263 of Rs. 1,92,000/-. Thus the total amount on which penalty was initiated was Rs. 63