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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

75,33,434/- made by disallowing anicut expenses. ii) Allowing club expenses of Rs. 5,97,737/- paid by assessee for membership of its employees; 3 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. iii) Deleting the addition of Rs. 18,35,481/- made by disallowing provision for loss on derivative transactions; iv) Deleting addition

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)

disallowance of Rs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and ITAT holding that section

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

disallowance of\nRs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained by CIT(A) and\nITAT holding that section

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

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

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

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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)

section 14A of the Act is not applicable to attract any disallowance more so when no exempt income has been earned by the Appellant. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decision : • Satya Narayan Dhoot vs PCIT I.T.A. No. 49/Jodh/2022 order dated 17 January 2023 [PB 75

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

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.14,75

RATAN TAXTILES P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

section 145(3) are invoked.” Grounds of revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 595/JP/2016. “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance of stipend expenses @ 20% as against 75

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

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D could not be added while computing book profits as per section 115JB as Explanation to that section did not specifically mentions section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961”. 5.7 In view of the above, it was submitted that the AO be directed to delete the adjustment of Rs. 71,75

LAKHANI SHOEE CO. PVT. LTD vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

75,000/- was made in M/s Lakhani Footwear Pvt. Ltd. this investment is in pursuance of family settlement. Further, revenue has not disputed the contention of the assessee that no tax free income is earned from the investment in question. We find merit into the contention that as per provision of Section 14A, the AO is empowered to make disallowance

MAANWATI AGARWAL, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

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

75,000/- on account of disallowance of interest paid on bogus unsecured loans. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant has filed the present appeal raising 3 grounds of appeal and all are related to the above addition of the AO. There is a delay in filing the appeal. Considering the facts of the case and reasons submitted, the delay

NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS ,JHUNJHUNU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE JHUNJHUNU, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JHUNJHUNU

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

75 of the Customs Act and section 37 of the Central Excise Act. 18. Analysing the concept of remission of duty drawback and DEPB, we are satisfied that the remission of duty is on account of the statutory/policy provisions in the Customs Act/Scheme(s) framed by the Government of India. In the circumstances, we hold that profits derived

KESRI SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return For The Year. Kesri Singh Vs. Acit

75,351/- which was processed U/s 143(1) of the IT Act and in terms of intimation dated 21.05.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 1,47,021/- 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

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

RAYS POWER EXPERTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

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

Disallowance under section 14A of ITA 1961 of Rs.69,374 was made. Notice under section 250 were issued, however, there was no compliance and appeal is being decided based on material available on record. Grounds of appeal are adjudicated as follows- Ground of Appeal One is general in nature and not adjudicated thus. Ground of Appeal Two is qua addition