SHANKAR LAL LUDHANI THROUGH LATA DEVI LUDHANI AS LEGAL HEIR,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

65. section 69A, section 698, section 690 or section 690 to the extent such income has been included by the assessee in the return of income furnished under section 139 and the tax in accordance with the provisions of clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 11588E has been paid on or before the end of the relevant previous

M/S. RAMBHOJO'S,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

disallowance of certain expenses. The ld AO levied penalty of Rs. 57,33,335/- under clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) @ 10% of Rs. 5,73,33,348/- being income surrendered in search as recorded in statement u/s 132(4) and of Rs. 35,408/- under sub clause (b) of section 271AAB (1) of Act @ 20% of Rs. 1

AJEET SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO WD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

section 139(1) of the Act. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the said disallowance was sustained. 4. Being aggrieved by the impugned order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed complete details of the entire payments i.e. employee

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. This will result in an addition of Rs. 2,65

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. This will result in an addition of Rs. 2,65

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the above sum is liable to be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. This will result in an addition of Rs. 2,65

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

65,426 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed:-\n\nDisallowance of CSR Expenses\nDisallowance u/s 14A\nRs.40,42,000/-\nRs.37,19,337/-\n\nAfter the order of Hon'ble ITAT, AO again issued notice dt.14.03.2019 (PB 17) to\nshow cause why penalty u/s 271(1

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

65. Pursuant to the above approval, the assessee company has constructed the anicut at its own cost and has incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,91,59,945 during the year under consideration. The specification and design shall be approved by the Chief Engineer, ID & R unit Jaipur. The quality assurance and supervision shall be carried out by IMTI Kota

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

65. Pursuant to the above approval, the assessee company has constructed the anicut at its own cost and has incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,91,59,945 during the year under consideration. The specification and design shall be approved by the Chief Engineer, ID & R unit Jaipur. The quality assurance and supervision shall be carried out by IMTI Kota

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

65. Pursuant to the above approval, the assessee company has constructed the anicut at its own cost and has incurred an expenditure of Rs 1,91,59,945 during the year under consideration. The specification and design shall be approved by the Chief Engineer, ID & R unit Jaipur. The quality assurance and supervision shall be carried out by IMTI Kota

DUSHYANT KUMAR TYAGI,G1-1103 R.I.A. vs. DCIT CPC BENGALURU, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

disallowing due to non-deduction of TDS on interest paid u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 37(1) read with section second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) further read with first proviso to section 201(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 inserted by Finance Act, 2012 w.e.f

KANHAIYALAL RAMESHWAR DAS,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

65 (High Court-Guj), the\nassessing officer in his penalty order noted as under: - “In view of the above\nfacts, it is clear that the assessee concealed income/furnished inaccurate\nparticulars of income. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271\n(1) (c)\" Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the above case held that, where

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

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

1) of the Act so as to substantiate the claim as applicable as per the provisions under section 80AC of the IT Act. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 5,24,65

ACIT(EXEMPTION), JAIPUR vs. MAHIMA SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR

In the result, all the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed and ground taken by the assessee society is allowed

65,26,288.00 2004-05 2,80,82,530.20 7,27,88,255.00 2005-06 4,18,59,223.00 4,75,03,260.00 2006-07 5,96,81,354.00 5,12,75,041.00 2007-08 6,77,92,066.00 11,25,15,384.00 2008-09 12,44,29,983.15 9,87,57,585.00 2009-10 6,36,87,969.81 1

ITO, WAR-4(1), JAIPUR vs. SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

disallowed in the year in which it was claimed, or could have been treated as unexplained cash credit in the hands of the assessee under section 68 of the Act in relevant assessment years, but the same cannot be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act, in as much as if the liability itself is not genuine, the question

DHABRIYA POLYWOOD LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-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)

sections. The assessee company filed its return of income on 13-11-2020 for the A.Y. 2020-21 declaring total income at Rs.2,65,25,700/-. The return of the assessee company was processed u/s 143(1) vide intimation dated 24-12-2021 wherein the AO (CPC) made an addition of Rs.77,952/- for late deposit of contribution to ESI/PF

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the penalty is directed to be deleted and appeal of the assessee is allowed

65 (High Court-Guj), the assessing officer in his penalty order noted as under: - “In view of the above facts, it is clear that the assessee concealed income/furnished inaccurate particulars of income. I, therefore, consider it a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c)” Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in the above case held that, where