CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, 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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

63,555).\nThe disallowance as per Rule 8D(2)(ii) is worked out to Rs.\n5,80,253 (being 1% of average investment of Rs. 5,80,25,377).\nHowever, neither the company has offered any such\ndisallowance suo moto nor the FAO has made any disallowance\nu/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of the IT Rules.\n2.2 As per note

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed u/s 14A /\nRule 8 D\nThus in view of above, it is evidently clear that the investment made in\nthe share capital of various companies was with a sole motive of\nobtaining controlling interest in them, earing of any dividend or capital\ngain as a motive was never in sight, and therefore such strategic\ninvestment were outside the scope

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

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

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

disallowance in\r\nrespect of the items of club fees, gifts and presents, etc., then in view of the\r\ndiscussion as above, he would have been justified as per Expln. 3 to reduce the\r\nclaim of deduction under ss.80HH and 80-1 as well. In view of the above\r\ndiscussions, the Tribunal was right in holding that

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

63,005/= ( Rs.67637053/= minus Rs.26374048/=) was invested out of interest bearing borrowed funds which may be considered for disallowance of interest u/s 14A. In this reference, it is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has considered total amount of Rs.6,76,37,053/= invested in shares presuming it to be out of interest bearing borrowings while computing disallowance under section

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

63,005/= ( Rs.67637053/= minus Rs.26374048/=) was invested out of interest bearing borrowed funds which may be considered for disallowance of interest u/s 14A. In this reference, it is submitted that the learned Assessing Officer has considered total amount of Rs.6,76,37,053/= invested in shares presuming it to be out of interest bearing borrowings while computing disallowance under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, NCR BUILDING, STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR vs. VASUDEV HEMRAJANI, ARJUN NAGAR, JAIPUR

The appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 145(3) and following additions / disallowances were made: (i) Addition u/s 68 on account of Cash deposit in bank Rs.8,60,03,806/- (ii) Adhoc disallowance out of expenses Rs.12,63

BHANU PARKASH BANSAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return as per section 143(1)(a)(iv). 2 SHRI BHANU PRAKASH BANSAL VS ITO,WARD 2(3), KOTA (ii) the said amount has been paid before due date of filing of return and thus cannot be added to income