OCEAN EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

9) held that where assessee company made payment of employees contribution towards provident fund, assessee's claim could not be disallowed on account of delayed payment in view of amendment to section 43B. In CIT v. Vatika Township (2014) 367 ITR466 (SC) (Five Judges Bench) Levy of surcharge on block assessment years pertaining prior to ist June 2002 is held

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)

vii. It is further submitted that provisions of section 143(1)(a)(iv) can be invoked with reference to other clauses like, for example, the following 19 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR wherein the auditor is required to express his opinion with reference to disallowance: Clause 21(b)-Amounts inadmissible under section 40(a),  Clause

ARAVALI BUILDHOMES LLP,JAIPUR vs. AO CPC, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9. The main issue raised by the assessee in this case is that the delay in audit has led to delay in filing of return which had led to his claim of 80IB(10) being disallowed and this had caused genuine hardship to him. It should be noted first that disallowance of any claim will normally lead to hardship

PRADEEP SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

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

1)(vii)\nwould not entitle the appellant to claim a deduction. This position was reiterated\nagain in Catholic Syrian Bank Vs. Commissioner of Income tax, Thrissur.\n4.4.2 In view of the above discussions, the appellant's claim of bad debts on the\ngrounds that 'tax rate revision which is disputed by the vendor\" is not acceptable.\nThe reasons submitted

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

AMBA TECH ENGINEERING,JAIPUR vs. ITO, BHIWADI

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

9 of the memorandum explaining the provisions are reproduced as under:- “Rationalisation of various Provisions Payment by employer of employee contribution to a fund on or before due date Clause (24) of section 2 of the Act provides an inclusive definition of the income. Sub-clause (x) to the said clause provide that income to include any sum received

KARNI KEHAR SECURITY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

vii) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision of an explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section. came into force. [Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44)] [Brij Mohan Das Laxman

DEVI SHANKER,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

vii) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision of an explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section. came into force. [Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44)] [Brij Mohan Das Laxman

GROUP ZERO,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are allowed

vii) An Explanation to a statutory provision may fulfil the purpose of clearing up an ambiguity in the main provision of an explanation can add to and widen the scope of the main section. came into force. [Shyam Sunder vs. Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 (para 44)] [Brij Mohan Das Laxman

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

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

vii) Allowing rent of Rs. 7,13,862/- paid to a person specified u/s 40A(2)(b); viii) Holding that the donation of Rs. 76,15,213/- made by the assessee to DAV Trust was expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee; ix) Deleting the addition of Rs. 13,31,39,886/- made

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

vii) of sub-section (1) M/s JLC Electromet Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ACIT, Circle-04, Jaipur of section 9;” The payment in question is commission and prima facie not royalty or Fee for Technical Services (FTS). The AO though observed that the payment in the nature of FTS, however the AO has not examined or not given the finding

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(1)(vii

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

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 9(1)(vii), read in its plain, same envisages the fulfilment of two conditions: services, which are source of income sought to be taxed in India must be (1) utilized in India and (ii) rendered in India. In the present case, both these conditions have not been satisfied simultaneously. Thus, it has been proved

SUBHASH CHAND GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 9(1) (vii) of the Act to mean "any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include consideration for any construction, assembly mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be income

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

vii) The disallowance has rightly been made on the basis of the relevant law viz-a vir the due dates of depositing of the amounts which are held by the employer, the appellant in trust since these are the contributions of the employees and not the share of the contribution to be made by the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme

OM INFRA LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ADIT (CPC) BANGALORE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 534 & 536/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 & 2018-19 Om Infra Limited Om Tower, M. I. Road Church Road, Rajasthan cuke Vs. ADIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bengaluru, Karnataka LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACO 8245 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri B. V. Maheshwari (F.C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. A. S. Nehra

vii) The disallowance has rightly been made on the basis of the relevant law viz-a vir the due dates of depositing of the amounts which are held by the employer, the appellant in trust since these are the contributions of the employees and not the share of the contribution to be made by the employer. The Hon'ble Supreme