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

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

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

vii) Accordingly the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2) of\nthe Act should have been added in the income of the assessee.\nSince the AO has not considered this issue while completing\nthe assessment in this case, the assessment order passed under\nsection 143(3) dated 17.03.2021 is held to be erroneous and\nprejudicial to the interest

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

vii) of sub-section (1) of section 9; (iii) "professional services" shall have the same meaning as in clause (a) of . the Explanation to section 194J; (iv) "work" shall have the same meaning as in Explanation III to section 194C; (v) "rent" shall have the same meaning as in clause (i) to the Explanation to section

DYNAMIC POWERTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowed the 6 Dynamic Powertech Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT assessee company's claim under Section 10AA and raised a demand of Rs.66,11,560/-. The appellant immediately filed a rectification request under Section 154 on 22.01.2024 (Rectification Request No. 9091774400220124) highlighting the error in CPC's processing. However, CPC rejected the application on the ground that there was no mistake

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1,25,77,776/- 13,479/- 2,92,49,133/- 1,26,75,990/- 148&155 35 2011-12 (2,31,28,905) 1,66,22,102/- 20,740/- 3,95,30,668/- 1,64,22,500/- From perusal of above

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1,25,77,776/- 13,479/- 2,92,49,133/- 1,26,75,990/- 148&155 35 2011-12 (2,31,28,905) 1,66,22,102/- 20,740/- 3,95,30,668/- 1,64,22,500/- From perusal of above

M/S SUMERU ENTERPROSES,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-4, JAIPUR

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

9,738/- 2,51,64,779/- 1,14,76,130/- 129&133 32 2009-10 (1,66,00,101) 1,25,77,776/- 13,479/- 2,92,49,133/- 1,26,75,990/- 148&155 35 2011-12 (2,31,28,905) 1,66,22,102/- 20,740/- 3,95,30,668/- 1,64,22,500/- From perusal of above

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)

vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason thatthe conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision." Here the bench noted that the merits

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

disallowance of\nRs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and\nthe same be deleted.\n7.\nThe Id. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written\nsubmission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue\nthat the case was reopened by ITO, Ward 4(1), Chandigarh

SH. HARI PRAKASH GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

The appeal stands allowed

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

disallowance of Sh. Hari Prakash Gupta vs. ITO Rs.5,26,000/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of the Act and the same be deleted. 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that it is not disputed by the revenue that the case was reopened

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

9:28 AM placed on record. The assessee - appellant approached the bank wherein the bank advanced the 55 Shree Cement Limited vs. ACIT reasons for technical glitch on the website of SBI bank and that is why the said payment could not be processed on the same day on 15-04-2019. To confirm that fact the said bank issued

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

vii) LATE SHRI BHUSHAN LAL SAWHNEY vs. DEPUTY\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nIN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH 'A'\nBHAVNESH SAINI, JM & B.R.R KUMAR, AM.\nITA.Nos., 434, 435, 436, 437, 438 & 439/Del./2017\n91 ITR (Trib) 0565 (Delhi), (2021) 212 TTJ 0357 (Del), (2021)\n203 DTR (Trib) 0249 (Del)(Trib)\nAfter considering the rival submissions, we are of the view that

MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 14. In her submissions, the ld D/R submitted that the assessee company has paid commission of Rs. 99,84,435/- to foreign agents as sales commission during the year on which TDS was not done as per provisions of section 195 read with Explanation II to the said

M/S MODERN THREADS (INDIA) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

disallowance under the provisions of section 40(a)(i) of the Act. 14. In her submissions, the ld D/R submitted that the assessee company has paid commission of Rs. 99,84,435/- to foreign agents as sales commission during the year on which TDS was not done as per provisions of section 195 read with Explanation II to the said