THIKARIYA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD ,THIKARIYA vs. AO CPCITO WARD SIKAR, SIKAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-1AB, 80-1B, 80-IC, 80-ID, or section

KATRATHAL GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LIMITED ,KATRATHAL vs. ITO WARD 1 SIKAR, SIKAR

disallowed the deduction claimed u/s 80P as per the provision\r\nof section 80AC of the Act.\r\n5. 1. Before moving further, let me first surface provision of section 80AC of the Act\r\nwhich comes into force from 01/04/2018. The provision of section 80AC is as under\r\n:-\r\n[Deduction not to be allowed unless return

SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

disallowed U/s 80IA of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has dealt the issue by holding as under: “I have gone through assessee’s submission and AO’s findings. ITA 100/JP/2017_ M/s Shiv Kumar 4 Sushil Kumar Tea Enterprises P Ltd. Vs. ACIT From a perusal of the documents available on record it is seen that the appellant

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GURU PRAGYA INFRA (P) LTD., JAIPUR

disallowed the claim of deduction for the reason that assessee has not fulfilled the following conditions prescribed u/s 80- IB(10):- (i) As per section

M/S SHIV KUMAR SUSHIL KUMAR TEA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 80-IB, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty For concealment of income (Disallowance of claim, effect of) - Assessment

BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BAJRANG WIRE PRODUCTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DCIT CIRCLE -4-JAIPUR, RJN-C-(104)(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

80-IE shall not be allowed, and at the same time section 139(5) provides for filing a revised return when the assessee discovers any omission or any wrong statement made in the return already filed under sub- section (1) of section 139 or return filed under sub- section (1) of section 142. This revised return can be filed

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)

80-IB on DEPB, VKUY, VKGUY provision and Duty Draw Back 3 NEEL KANTH GUM AND CHEMICALS VS ACIT, CIRCLE- JUHNJHUNU Provision. Hence, the provisions of Section 271(1)© of the Act are applicable in this case and it is a fit case to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)© of the Act. I, therefore, proceed to levy of penalty

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, we find no substantial question of law being involved in this appeal

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowance “6.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- 6.3 The careful perusal of the section 80IC provisions would show that before the introduction of section

BARODA RAJASTHAN KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK,AJMER vs. DY. CIT (ACIT) CIRCLE -2 AJMER , CR BUILDING,OPP. SESSION COURT,JAIPUR ROAD ,AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarbaroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, 2343 Rajasthan Patrika Building, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer – 305004 Pan No. Aaajb1164C ...... Appellant

disallowance of deduction u/s. 80P of the Act. The assessee being further aggrieved preferred the present appeal before us. 4. We have gone through the order of the AO, order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submissions of the assessee alongwith grounds taken before us. It is observed that the assessee is an artificial judicial person (AJP) as the same

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

80,20,090 (I.e. 17,20,570+62,99,520)\nOutstanding GST as on 31st Mar 2018 for AY\n2018-19\n28,13,732\nLess: Amount Paid before 30.10.2019 (PB)\n28,13,732\nTotal ST Disallowance as per TAR (B)\n64,83,823\nTotal Disallowance as per Order\n42,03,553 1,95,27,207\n1. The CA has disalowed

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

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

80,20,090 (I.e. 17,20,570+62,99,520)\nOutstanding GST as on 31st Mar 2018 for AY\n2018-19\n28,13,732\nLess: Amount Paid before 30.10.2019 (PB)\n28,13,732\nTotal ST Disallowance as per TAR (B)\n64,83,823\nTotal Disallowance as per Order\n42,03,553\n1,95,27,207\n1. The CA has disalowed

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

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

80,20,090 (I.e. 17,20,570+62,99,520)\nOutstanding GST as on 31st Mar 2018 for AY\n2018-19\n28,13,732\nLess: Amount Paid before 30.10.2019 (PB)\n28,13,732\nTotal ST Disallowance as per TAR (B)\n64,83,823\nTotal Disallowance as per Order\n42,03,553 1,95,27,207\nRemark

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

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

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

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

THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN EMPLOYEES CREDIT & THIRFT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA No

80-IA] [section 80J] and section 80JJ]]\n(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other\nthan a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural\ndevelopment bank.\nExplanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, -\n(a) "co-operative bank" and "primary agricultural credit society" shall

BLUEPRINT INFRAHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. ADIT CPC BENGALURU OR ITO WARD 6(1) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee's company. 6.2. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A) who also rejected the claim relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna. The applicability of the said decision to the facts of the present case is disputed

SHRI KARAN RAWAT,NAINITAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5-3, JAIPUR

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

Bench: Us.

section 80-IC since A.Y. 2011-12 and the same has never been disallowed. Further, for A.Y. 2013-14, the assessment

GANGAUR EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result grounds raised by the assessee are allowed and order of Ld

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed the CSR expenditure as it is not allowable as per explanation 2 to sub section(1) of section 37 of the Income tax act,1961 But claimed deduction u/s 80