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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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 in group companies without any commercial expediency

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 under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74

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 under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74

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 under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74

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 under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallowance under section 40A(3) has been rightly deleted by the ld CIT(A). The ground no. 2 of revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 29. Regarding ground No. 3 of the Revenue’s appeal relating to deletion of addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs 1,18,34,723 under Section 69C, briefly the facts of the case

RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the setting off of the loss of AY 2013-14 with that of the profit of the current year since the return of income for AY 2013-14 was as belated return. 5.3 During the course of the appellate proceedings, the appellant claimed that the phrase "or sub-section (2) of section 73A" was inserted in section

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

74,610/- on account of disallowance out of aforementioned expenses is restricted up to Rs. 9,83,073/-, the appellant gets relief of Rs. 4,91,537/-. This ground is treated as partly allowed.” 18. In respect of this ground the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that AO disallowed 15% out of various expenditure, stated that the expenses were

KAPIL TANEJA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance has been made as per section 57(iii), though provisions of section 57(iii) have not been invoked specifically. The assessee in support of the claim relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case 29 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. ACIT of CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody [1978] 115 ITR 519 wherein the Court held that

RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed. The appellant filed rectification application u/s. 154 on 24-01-2019 and the application was rejected vide order u/s. 154 dated 17.04.2019, due to the reason that the return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed beyond the time prescribed u/s 139(1). 5.2. Having considered the submissions of the appellant, it is seen that the due date

RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

disallowed. The appellant filed rectification application u/s. 154 on 24-01-2019 and the application was rejected vide order u/s. 154 dated 17.04.2019, due to the reason that the return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed beyond the time prescribed u/s 139(1). 5.2. Having considered the submissions of the appellant, it is seen that the due date

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

M/S APM INDUSTRIES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of above directions

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Sustained The Said Disallowance.

Section 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D. Thereafter, considering the submissions of the assessee and the value of the investment reflected in the balance sheet, the AO recomputed the disallowance as per Rule 8D which comes to Rs. 17,76,360/- and the difference amount of Rs. 12,24,717/- was disallowed and added back to the income

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your

SH. ASHOK SONI,27, MAHADEO DAGDI NAGAR, BEHIND ADARSH NAGAR, GALI NO.2, BEAWAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

74,539/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 29.04.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 3,89,650/- 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 to pay the employee

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

74,138/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated Group Zero vs. ITO 25.02.2020 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 11,81,570/- 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