CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, 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

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

section 40(a(ia). We request for total deletion of said disallowance first and alternatively we pray for 30% disallowance without prejudice to our main contention. 8

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

section 40(a(ia). We request for total deletion of said disallowance first and alternatively we pray for 30% disallowance without prejudice to our main contention. 8

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

section 40(a(ia). We request for total deletion of said disallowance first and alternatively we pray for 30% disallowance without prejudice to our main contention. 8

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

section 40(a(ia). We request for total deletion of said disallowance first and alternatively we pray for 30% disallowance without prejudice to our main contention. 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

M/S DANISH PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

section 40(a)(ia) and disallowed interest payments - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed disallowance made by Assessing Officer - On instant appeal, it was seen that apart from aforesaid inference, there was no other evidence in possession of revenue authorities to hold that declarations were not submitted by payees of interest to assessee at time when payments 8

MODERN INSULATORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

8 ITA No. 74/JP/2019. M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd., Jaipur. 11.2 As a matter of fact, a perusal of the judgment would show that the Revenue had sought to argue that because exempt income could be earned in future years, therefore, recourse could be taken to the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, to disallow

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