DR B LAL CLINICAL LABORATORY PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Us.

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs. 1,32,66

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the employees' contribution to provident fund while processing the return under s. 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6 , JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the employees' contribution to provident fund while processing the return under s. 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

disallowing the employees' contribution to provident fund while processing the return under s. 143(1) of the Act is against the provisions of the Act as it would not fall within the ambit of prima facie adjustments. 3. It is also submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses

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)

disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission:- 1. It is submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

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)

disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission:- 1. It is submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

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)

disallowance for ESI & PF also 9. filed additional written submission and same is reiterated in here in below: Further Submission:- 1. It is submitted that section 36(1) which provides for ‘other deduction’, states that deduction provided for in the specified clauses shall be allowed in respect of matters dealt with therein, in computing the income referred to in section

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

disallowance u/s 36(1) (va) of the Act can be made and in support, reliance wasplaced on the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court decision in case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. [84 taxmann.com 173] and departmental SLP in the case of CIT vs. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. wherein the case has been dismissed

WAHID KHAN,BHIWADI vs. ITO WARD-1(2), ALWAR /DCIT CPC BENGALURU, ALWAR/CPC BENGALURU

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

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

disallowing late deposit of Employees Contribution to ESIC and EPF u/s.2 (24) (x) r.w.s. 36 (1) (va) of the L.T. Act, 1961. Even otherwise, the claim of the assessee is allowable u/s 36(1) 2 Shri Wahid Khan, Bhiwadi. (va) r.w.s. 43B of the I.T. Act 1961, in view of binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court

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)

66,180/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 22.09.2018 through ITBA portal and duly served upon the assessee. Information under section 3 Bajrang Wire Products (India) Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur. 142(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was called for vide

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of Rs.3,17,55,786/- u/s.41(1) of the Income Tax Act on account of cessation of liability against non-genuine creditors are hereby confirmed. 5.1.20. Thus, first ground of appeal is dismissed. 6.1. The second ground of appeal in respect of initiation of penalty is premature and liable to be dismissed. This second ground of appeal is dismissed

AMBA TECH ENGINEERING,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)ADIT - CPC, ALWAR

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)

66 ITR 163 Rajasthan, which may kindly be allowed as the ruling of decision of Hon'ble SC in case of Checkmate Services Pvt Ltd vs CIT and amendments to section 36(1)(va) and sec. 438 by the Finance Act, 2021 are not available at the time of processing of ITR u/s 143(1

M/S READY ROTI INDIA PVT. LTD.,F-28, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SARE KHURD, ALWAR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-6, 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)

66 : (2009) 313 ITR 137 (Bom) (Bombay High Court); CIT vs. Udaipur DugdhUtpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 265 CTR (Raj) 59 : (2014) 98 DTR (Raj) 109 : (2013) 35 taxmann.com 616 (Raj) [Rajasthan High Court] and NipsoPolyfabriks (supra) would reveal that in all these cases, the High Courts principally relied upon omission of second proviso to s. 43B(b). No doubt

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

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

disallowed said claim on ground that interest paid under section\n201(1A) would be penal in nature - Whether since tax was deducted by\nassessee on behalf of third party, interest charged on failure to remit\nsame within due date to government would be compensatory in nature\nand interest paid on delayed payment of TDS under section 201(1A)\nwas