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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

1)(a)(iv)\ncan be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the\nfollowing wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with\nreference to disallowance:\nclause 21(b)- Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),\nclause 21(d)-Disallowance/deemed income under section 40A(3),\nclause 21(f)-Any sum paid by the assessee as an employer

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

7. Section 143(1)(a)(iv) i. It is submitted that u/s 143(1)(a)(iv) only a claim/expenditure whose disallowance has been indicated in the audit report but the same not been taken into account in computing the total income in the return can be adjusted while processing the return of income. 18 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1154/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 cuke Aravali Buildhomes LLP AO CPC, Vs. F. No. 205 Block A, Anukamapa Jaipur

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

B and such tax has not been deducted or, after deduction, has not been paid on or before the due date specified in sub- section(i) of Section 139". Section 194C/3): No deduction shall be made under sub-section (1) or sub- section(2) from (1) the amount of any sum credited or paid or likely to be credited

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

B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section 80-IE if the\nreturn is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-\nsection (1) of section 139, or\n(vi) Addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A\nor Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total\nincome in the return\nProvided that no such adjustments

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

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) of the Act. However, the assessee filed its\r\nreturn of income belatedly on 30-11-2020 and claimed deduction

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES 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)

B” JAIPUR JhlanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 97/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2020-21 cuke M/s. Beckhaul Digital Technologies (P)Ltd.B- The ITO 21, Shakti Bhawan, Shivaji Colony, Vs. Ward 1(1) Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk

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)

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 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed

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)

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 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed

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)

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 36(1)(va) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the order issued U/s 143(1) of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed

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)

7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s P R Packaging Services [supra]. We find that the co- ordinate bench has not given any independent finding but has simply relied 10 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR upon another decision of the co-ordinate bench

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)

7. We have carefully perused the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of M/s P R Packaging Services [supra]. We find that the co- ordinate bench has not given any independent finding but has simply relied 10 TELECRATS INDIA PVT LTD. VS ITO, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR upon another decision of the co-ordinate bench

7 HORSES HOSPITALITY LLP,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1) JAIPUR, 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)

7 HORSES HOSPITALITY LLP VS ITO, WARD 1 (1), JAIPUR 143(1), assumes critical importance in the processing of returns, also important to bear in mind the fact that what constitutes jurisdictionalHigh Court will essentially depend upon the location of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer. While dealing with jurisdiction for the appeals, rule 11(1) of the Central Processing of Returns

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

b) of\nexplanation below section 12AB(4). Which makes assessee liable for cancellation of\nregistration.\n7.12 Now the more important question comes that whether assessee is doing this activity\nas per its objects, or this entire process is beyond the objects of assessee. For this\npurpose, lets go through the objects of its trust deeds and powers of trustees

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

disallowed under section 43 B. if paid before the due date of filling the return. Relevant case laws in favour of appellant are:-  M/s EssaeTeraoka Pvt Ltd Vs DCIT (366 ITR 408) [2014] (Karnataka); CIT VsSabari Enterprises (298 ITR 141) [2008] (Karnataka),  CIT Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd and Rajasthan Rajya Vidut Utpadan  Nigam

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)

7. Final Judicial Support A. Cases Supporting Disallowance of CSR under Section 37(1) National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. v. CIT Citation: [2021] 124 taxmann.com 72 (Delhi - Trib.) Held: CSR expenses are statutorily disallowed under Explanation 2 to Section 37(1), even if incurred in connection with business. Claiming deduction amounts to inaccurate particulars of income. Supports penalty

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

7 Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd. 2.2.viii. It is further submitted that provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance: a. clause 21(b

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)

B] is concerned, brief facts are that for the assessment year 2005-06, the assessee filed the return of income on 30.10.2005 under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.53,24,330/-. In such return, the assessee did not claim speculation loss of Rs. 69,93,450/-. Such return was, however, revised under Section

SM WORKFORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,BHIWADI vs. ITO, WARD, BHIWADI

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)

b) of the Audit Report under section 44AB in Form No. 3CB. The Id. ADIT has made the addition disallowing the amounts treating them as late payments made by the assesse beyond the due date of deposit in fund set up under provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 account. It is submitted that in the last column of the above