AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

70,090/-.\n5.1.3 I have considered the reasoning of the assessing officer and the\nexplanation offered by the appellant. As per the provisions of section 43B,\nPayments in respect of taxes and Government dues can be claimed as\nexpenditure only on actual payment on or before the due date of return. This\nsection has been enacted to enforce.\nThis section

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part of its borrowing for making investments

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

70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part of its borrowing for making investments

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

70,02,212 4477.20 9% 305 3,74,24,514 6 5.00 9% India Steamship Limited 233 28,726 510.00 9% 233 29,30,055 Total Disallowance 35,92,45,372 21 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Hence, the AO held that the assessee had utilized a part of its borrowing for making investments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

ZUBERI ENGINEERING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue’s cross appeal is dismissed

disallowance made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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)

disallowance of Rs. 2,21,70,790/- against the indirect expenses under rule 8D (2)(ii). The assessee earned the exempt income of Rs. 62,529/- of long term capital gains under Section

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

Section 43B of the Act was inserted being retrospective in nature. 2.3. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court as well as other Hon'ble High Courts are consistently holding that where Assessee had paid employees contribution of PF and ESIC, though beyond due date(s) under respective Acts but prior to due date of 3 ITA 163/JP/2022 Gosil Exports

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)

70,76,173 Nil Nil Disallowance u/s 14A 37,19,337 37,19,337 37,19,337 Service Tax Receivable 1,64,16,000 1,64,16,000 Nil Short credit of TDS 15,65,426 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- Disallowance of CSR Expenses

AMIT SINGH,BHIWADI (ALWAR) vs. DCIT, CPC- BENGALURU, CPC- BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance U/s 36(1)(va) can be made and that this issue is settled in favour of the assesseee by the judgments of Hon’ble High Courts, which are produced as under:- 1. Judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur reported in (2014) 363 ITR 70 Rajasthan

DOLCAS BOTANOSYS PVT. LTD. BIKANER,BIKANER vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE/ACIT, C-1 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(1), in respect of contributions received from employees towards ESI/PF but not deposited to the relevant funds by the due dates under respective laws. 2. The assessee objected to such disallowance, however still the said addition was made in the order passed u/s 143(1), however the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said addition so made

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

70).” 5. In ITA No. 42/JP/2021 for A.Y 2019-20, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

K.P. AIRTECH,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

70).” 5. In ITA No. 42/JP/2021 for A.Y 2019-20, the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order passed by ld. CIT(A) is bad in law as he failed to appreciate that disallowance under section

SHIIV VEG PRO PRIVATE LIMITED,KOTA vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTER, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

70 (Raj), it was held that: "Where PF and-or EPF, CPF, GPF etc., if paid after due date under respective Act but before filing of return of income u-s. 139(1), could not be disallowed u-s. 43B or u-s. 36(1)(va). Substantial question of law answered against revenue and in favour of assessee. Revenue

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

70,76,173 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 37,19,337 | 37,19,337 | 37,19,337\n| Service Tax Receivable | 1,64,16,000 | 1,64,16,000 | Nil\n| Short credit of TDS | 15,65,426 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 25-94), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood confirmed

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