JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowances under section 14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9

DCIT, C-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

disallowed expenses of Rs. 34,18,126/- on account of export commission paid by assessee firm 34 DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur VS M/s. JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur u/s 40(i)(a) read with Section 195 holding said services to be managerial / technical services as defined under explanation 2 to Section 9

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9% p.a. amounting to Rs. 90,14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section

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

9% p.a. amounting to Rs. 90,14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9% p.a. amounting to Rs. 90,14,794/- which was disallowed as the assessee cannot be said to be carrying on a business of purchase and sale of mutual funds. The AO calculated the disallowance in respect of interest on investment in mutual funds under section

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

disallowed the same, by observing that section 9 of the Act applied in this case as the commission amount had accrued

M/S JLC ELECTROMET PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

9 was not applicable and, consequently, section 195 did not come into play. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing

URMILA RAJENDRA MUNDRA,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

In the result grounds raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

9 to section 270A” the fact of AO cannot be considered for “MISREPORTING” and thus the AO was suppose to grant immunity u/sec. 270AA and this order of AO is requested to be quashed. The assessee has applied for immunity u/sec. 270AA by filing form 68 (Rule 129) which also has been denied by AO since considered such disallowances

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

9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs 190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section

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

9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs 190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section

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

9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs 190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section

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

9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs 190,325 u/s 36(1)(va)/ section

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

disallowance made by the AO is illegal. Law does not allow the invocation of Section 40(a)(ia) for the cases of Section 194C(6) and 194C(7). In this he placed reliance on the judgement of ITAT Kolkata in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT Kolkata, ITA No. 1420/KOL/2015. 9

GUNMALA JAIN,AJMER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-2(2), AJMER, AJMER

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1262/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears :2019-20 Gunmala Jain, बनाम 28 Abhi Lash Nikunj, Kalyan Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2) Colony, Ajmer Road Kekri, Ajmer स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./ PAN/GIR No.: ABRPJ 4764E Ajmer अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assesseeby :Sh. Sunil Porwal, CA (Thr.V.C.) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary (Addl. CIT) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/1

9), it is relevant to consider the provisions of law dealing with underreporting of income and misreporting of income as a consequence of underreporting. Section 270A (1) and (2) deal with the levy of penalty for underreporting of income, with sub-Section (1) empowering the competent authority to levy penalty for underreporting of income and sub-Section (2) specifying

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

9,69,03,638/- in the Profit & Loss account. Therefore, the AO proposed to make the disallowance of expenses under section

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

9. Per contra, the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the written submission filed by him. The same is extracted here in below ; DPT. GROUND NO. 1: DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,89,35,558 U/S 40(a)(ib) 1. BRIEF FACTS 1.1. Assessee, an individual, for the relevant previous year, was in the business of providing support services

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 read with rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“Rules”) • Deduction of tax at source on matching the expense debited in profit and loss account with the amounts reported in clause 34 of the tax audit report • Difference in the amount of unabsorbed business loss allowed to be carried forward

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

disallowance U/s 40(a)(i) of the Act and relevant findings of the AO in para 6.6 to 6.8 reads as under: "6.6 Here, it would proper to examine the provisions of Section 9