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 of Rs 190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section 2(24)(x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS

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 of Rs 190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section 2(24)(x) of the Act without appreciating that said issue is covered in assessee’s favor by jurisdictional high court decisions. Invalid issuance of notice u/s 143(2) on basis of CASS 10. That Ld AO while issuing notice u/s 143(2) on mere basis of CASS

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 under section 14A of the Act. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter- related against the order passed under section 263 of the IT Act, 1961 and thereby directing the AO to make addition of Rs. 66,30,268/- under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

section 14A, made disallowance of Rs.Rs.2,87,229/-. The appellant has stated that the disallowance u/s 14A is attracted

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

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

section 36 (1) (va) and 43B proposed to be introduced by Finance Bill, 2021 (clause 8 & 9 of Bill) will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and wiil accordingly apply to assessment years 2021-22 and subsequent years. Thus no disallowance is to be made for not depositing employees contribution to PF/ESI on due date(s) and deposited late

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36 (1) (va) and 43B proposed to be introduced by Finance Bill, 2021 (clause 8 & 9 of Bill) will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and wiil accordingly apply to assessment years 2021-22 and subsequent years. Thus no disallowance is to be made for not depositing employees contribution to PF/ESI on due date(s) and deposited late

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)

87,80,532/- Interest Income from Gr Companies Rs. 1,23,21,610/- Interest from Bank Deposit Rs. 52,68,744/- Other loans & Advances Rs. 33,34,284/- Net Gain on sale of current investment Rs. 1,65,12,080/- Profit on sale of fixed assets Rs. 6,499/- Bad debts recovered Rs. 2,50,455/- Miscellaneous Income

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

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

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

THE EARTH HOUSE RESORTS LLP, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are 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.24,87

PRAHLAD NARAYAN BAIRWA,JAIPUR vs. ADIT,CPC,BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are 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.24,87

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are 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.24,87

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are 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.24,87

PRATAP TECHNOCRATS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU/ DCIT, CR.1 JAIPUR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are 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.24,87

JAIRAJ,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are 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.24,87

MODERN MASTI PVT, LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CR-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Due Date Of Filing Of The Return During The Year.

disallowed u/s. 43B. The assessee contended that avoiding the binding nature of judgments, the CPC, Bangalore was not justified in making addition of Rs.11,52,115/- which was paid before due date of filing of Return of Income and in rejecting application. The matter were carried to CIT(A)/NFAC by the assessee and the appeal of the assessee

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 40A(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the assessing officer in respect to payment of Rs. 2,12,50,000/- made by the appellant in cash for purchase of agricultural land hold as stock-in- trade resulting in disallowance and consequent of addition of Rs. 42,50,000/- being 20% of said amount

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

disallowing the Employee contribution of Rs. 4,62,183/-, under Section 36(1)(va), w.r.t. PF/ESI, when the same was deposited by the assessee firm, before the due date of filing the return of income. The Action of the ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting