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

67-68 9 Changanacherry Co- op. Agrl & Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. CIT/ITO (2023) 152 taxmann.com 466 (Cochin - Trib.) Disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P in order u/s 143(1)(a) - no advance notice issued to the assessee disallowance deleted. 10 Income-tax Officer (Exemption) v.Camellia Educare Trust [2023] 152 taxmann.com 304 (Kolkata - Trib.) Disallowance of exemption claimed

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

disallowed the exemption on the ground that the assessee has not filed its ROI u/s 139(1). The reason of not filing of the same are that as the assessee is a Govt. Cooperative Society and the accounts could not prepared the timely, also from March 2020 to till return filling there was Covid-19 Pandemic period it is also

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)

disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA

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)

disallowed the amount of Rs.49,67,023/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) 4 TELECRATS INDIA

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

67 CCH 0398 Rajkot Trib (2023)\r\n200 ITD 0014 (Rajkot-Trib) Asst. Year 2019-20 has held as under:-\r\n\"7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In\r\nthe instant facts, admittedly the assessee did not file return of income within the\r\ntime permissible under section 139(1

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. JITENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

67,426/- resulting in surrendered of the same in the ITR. Hence, the above mentioned concealment of income leads to attract penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1) (c). Further. the explanation put forth by the assessee in his defence has not been found satisfactory and in this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category

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

67,55,372/- thereby, partially allowing the assessee appeal. Thus, he implicitly accepted that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

67,55,372/- thereby, partially allowing the assessee appeal. Thus, he implicitly accepted that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

67,55,372/- thereby, partially allowing the assessee appeal. Thus, he implicitly accepted that no disallowance could be made under section 36(1

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA , JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

67,426/- resulting in surrendered of the same in the ITR. Hence, the above mentioned concealment of income leads to attract penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1) (c). Further. the explanation put forth by the assessee in his defence has not been found satisfactory and in this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category

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

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Itat & The Delay Occurred May Kindly Be Condoned.

67,870/- which was processed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act and in terms of intimation dated 24.09.2018 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 35,25,527/- 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

BRAHAM PARKASH YADAV,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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)

section 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 2 Braham Parkash Yadav 10,93,988/- and the ld. CIT(A) Faceless also erred in confirming the said addition.” 3. The assessee has also raised additional ground as under:- “1. Disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) amounting to Rs. 10,93,988/- in view of the judgment of Chechmate Services Private

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAIPUR vs. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

67,426/- resulting in\nsurrendered of the same in the ITR. Hence, the above mentioned concealment of\nincome leads to attract penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1) (c). Further.\nthe explanation put forth by the assessee in his defence has not been found\nsatisfactory and in this way also the case of the assessee falls in the category

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

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

ALFAMAX PACKAGING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 6,97,361/- and Rs. 3,29,492/- total Rs. 10,26,853/- made by the A.O. The AO during assessment proceedings made additions of Rs. 10,26,853/- U/s 2(24)(x) Vyona Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. read with Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 on account of late deposit

VYONA LOGISTICS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessees are allowed

disallowance of Rs. 6,97,361/- and Rs. 3,29,492/- total Rs. 10,26,853/- made by the A.O. The AO during assessment proceedings made additions of Rs. 10,26,853/- U/s 2(24)(x) Vyona Logistics Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. read with Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 on account of late deposit