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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 36(1)(iii) of the Act as under:- S. MF Investment Redemption Dividend Interest No Days Income Disallowed In INR Date In INR Date 1 Birla Sunlife 50,000,000 23-Jun-11 50,000,000 28-Jun-11 44,587.39 5 61,643.84 15-Apr-11 2 Reliance

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance under Section 14A, which\ncannot be said to be erroneous.\n1.6. Case laws replied upon by Id. PCIT at Page 8

RANIWALA JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6,JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

disallowance, on procedural ground, or not. It is observed that the Ld. Addl./JCIT (A) - 6, Mumbairelied upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of [2022] 140 taxmann.com 223 (SC)Principal Commissioner of Income-taxvs.Wipro Ltd.and [2018] 95 taxmann.com 327 (SC)Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbaivs.Dilip Kumar & Company while dismissing the claim

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

8. The ld AR has submitted that Section 40(a)(ia) is not applicable at all, accordingly, disallowance made by the AO is illegal

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)

disallowance could be effected under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] if the respondent/assessee had not earned income which was exempt from imposition of tax. 7.1. The Tribunal has taken a view in favour of the respondent/assessee. 8

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

disallow the employees contribution to by clarifying that provisions of section 43B shall not apply. It was also clarified in Memo explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 under the head rationalization of various provision that the said explanations to section 36 (1) (va) and 43B proposed to be introduced by Finance Bill, 2021 (clause 8

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallow the employees contribution to by clarifying that provisions of section 43B shall not apply. It was also clarified in Memo explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill, 2021 under the head rationalization of various provision that the said explanations to section 36 (1) (va) and 43B proposed to be introduced by Finance Bill, 2021 (clause 8

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 143(1)(a)(iv) of the Income Tax Act on the fallacy of presumption that the auditor has disallowed the employee contribution to EPF/ESI. Further as there are several contrary judgement on the issue of allowability of late deposit of ESI and EPF which has been taken in first para and it cannot fall under the word prime facie

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)

8. Section 143(1)(a)(v) i. It is submitted that only disallowance of deduction claimed under [section 10AA or under

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper 'Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue

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)

8,10,90,469 Nil Set aside written back Disallowance of deduction 3,72,56,000 Nil Set aside on account of reduction in nature of land under litigation Short credit of TDS 1,44,565 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

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 under section 14A read with rule 8D(2), Commissioner having failed to make out that order of Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, order passed under section 263 was to be set aside. 8

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

disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act.” Para 24: “Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant-revenue and in favour of the assessee.” c. CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (2014) 366 ITR 163 Relying on various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the decision

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowance on account of\ndelay in the deposit of employees' contribution to PF/ESI.\n8. It would be apt to refer to the relevant part of the decision of\nthe Tribunal in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics [supra] followed in P R\nPackaging Service [supra] wherein it has been held as under:-\n“8. When the law enacted by the legislature

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowed against anticipated\nincome.\n11.3. Pertinently, the Division Bench in M/s. Redington (India) Limited case\nhas repelled this precise argument.\n12. The Division Bench, in our view, quiet correctly held that, the\ncomputation of total income, in terms of Section 5 of the Act, is made\nqua real income and not, vis-a-vis, notional income.\n12.1. The Division Bench

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

8. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant wishes to lodge claim of disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act of Rs.67,01,184/- as an allowable business expenditure, as no disallowance was required to be made as the appellant was having sufficient interest free funds to make such investment. Reliance is placed on Apex court judgement

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(va). No substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the ITAT. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M-s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.177-2011); Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.189-2011), followed." 2.6 The Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench has also

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A reply was submitted drawing attention of CPC that such contributions deposited prior to due date of filing ITR are to be allowed in view of binding judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT v/s SBBJ 363 ITR 70. However