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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

89,108/- made on account of depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available

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

sections, hence no appeal is maintainable.\nb)\nThe ground raised by the assessee that this is a loss as GST was not paid\nby the customers hence same is allowable expenditure as business loss. This\nhas never been recorded by the assessee in the audit report or in any accounts.\nHence assessee is claiming that his books of accounts

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

sections, hence no appeal is maintainable.\nb) The ground raised by the assessee that this is a loss as GST was not paid\nby the customers hence same is allowable expenditure as business loss. This\nhas never been recorded by the assessee in the audit report or in any accounts.\nHence assessee is claiming that his books of accounts

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

sections, hence no appeal is maintainable.\nb)\nThe ground raised by the assessee that this is a loss as GST was not paid\nby the customers hence same is allowable expenditure as business loss. This\nhas never been recorded by the assessee in the audit report or in any accounts.\nHence assessee is claiming that his books of accounts

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 of any amount was not permissible, SLP filed against said decision was dismissed. • CIT vs Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (2018) 257 Taxman 2 (SC) [PB 89

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

89,31,297/-as capital receipt in computing tax liability under the normal provision of the Act. 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

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

89,00,000/- Sitaram NIL 01-02-2007 71,00,000/- Govindi Bai 21,50,000/- 2,12,50,000/- 18. It was submitted that the A.O. issued a show cause notice asking the assessee company to explain why the cash payments should not be disallowed for violation of provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. PRAKASH CHANDRA MISHRA, JAIPUR

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

89,35,558/- on which disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ib) is required to be made, as the assessee fails to deduct equalization levy under the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Finance Act, 2016. The ld. AO made the disallowance of this amount contending that nowhere in the provisions of section

DYNAMIC CABLES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL , DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Filing Income Tax Return Even After Supreme Court Judgement & High Court Judgement (Including Rajasthan High Court & Itat Jaipur Bench) On This Issue In Favour Of The Assessee.

section 5 is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice--that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of courts. A justifiably liberal approach has to be adopted on principle. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not imply a pedantic approach

SONALI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT - 7, , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

89,017/- 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 to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

SH. ASHOK SONI,27, MAHADEO DAGDI NAGAR, BEHIND ADARSH NAGAR, GALI NO.2, BEAWAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

89,650/- 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 to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A would not be applicable in the case of the assessee as the investment has been made solely for the purpose of having the controlling interest. There is no change into the facts in this year as well. The revenue has not brought to our notice any contrary binding precedent. Moreover, the assessee has dividend income to the tune

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A would not be applicable in the case of the assessee as the investment has been made solely for the purpose of having the controlling interest. There is no change into the facts in this year as well. The revenue has not brought to our notice any contrary binding precedent. Moreover, the assessee has dividend income to the tune

NIMBUS PIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

89,200/- wherein ADIT CPC, Bangaore has made addition of Rs. 2,54,004/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI. Being aggrieved by the order, the assessee is in appeal against the said order u/s 154 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the order issued

BAL SWAROOP AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

89,55,259/- by making addition of Rs. 70,982/- on account of disallowance of delayed payment of PF and ESI. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has confirmed the disallowance made U/s 143(1) on account of assessee’s failure to pay the employee’s contribution of PF/ESI within the prescribed due dates as per Section

SHIV LAL,ALWAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

89,620/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 21/12/2019 issued by CPC, Bangalore it made disallowance of Rs. 11,44,709/- 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 Sh. Shiv lal vs. CPC assessee

SETH RB MOONDHRA MEMORIAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BANI PARK ,JAIPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION(1), JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

89 point no. 6 (iv)). 1.2. The return of income was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Act on 15.11.2014 by the CPC Bangalore, however, the amount accumulated or set apart for application to charitable purposes to the extent it does not exceed 15 per cent of the income, claimed at Rs. 43,272/- under section

M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. Thus, we are of the view the ld. PCIT has erred in invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the IT Act and in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, we find merit in the grievance raised by the assessee, accordingly we hold that the ld. PCIT is not justified in directing