SANJEEV AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 90 of the ITA would be denied. In case the intention of the statute was to deny the FTC, either the ITA or the relevant Rule 128 would have specifically provided that the FTC would be disallowed

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

90,51,263/- was liable to be disallowed u/s\n43B (e) of the IT Act.\n2.3 As per clause 34(c) of tax audit report in form 3CD, an\ninterest of Rs.55,810/-is paid on delayed payment of TDS\nwhich is not eligible for deduction either u/s 36(1)(iii) or u/s 37\nof the Act but the same

ABHINAV JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(INT. TAX.), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section 90

SANDEEP JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

90 then the provisions of section 91 will become operational. Provisions of section 91 are general in nature and applicable to every type of assessee. Intention of law is very clear that the provisions of section 91, being beneficial to the assessee will hold the field. 4.12 As Section 91 did not discriminate between state and federal taxes

SUDARSHAN CHITLANGIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section 90

RAJESH KUMAR LAKHRAN,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WD-7(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance was confirmed on the sole ground that the relevant form 67 prescribed under section 128(8) was not filed within the time stipulated under sub rule 9 of Rule 128. It is important to mention here that section 90

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)

90,293 69,34,83,925 It was also submitted that no exempt income has been earned during the assessment year under appeal so as to attract any disallowance under section

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

90,469 Nil Set aside written back Disallowance of deduction 3,72,56,000 Nil Set aside on account of reduction in nature of land under litigation Short credit of TDS 1,44,565 Nil Nil Thus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance made by the AO stood confirmed:- RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

90,469 | Nil | Set aside\n| written back\n| Disallowance of deduction | 3,72,56,000 | Nil | Set aside\n| on account of reduction in\n| nature of land\nunder\n| litigation\n| Short credit of TDS | 1,44,565 | Nil | Nil\n\nThus after the order of ITAT dt.10.04.2018 (PB 18-83), following disallowance\nmade by the AO stood

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

90,69,581 / 34,41,23,306\n= 45,13,413 + 13,05,279 (1% of annual average of opening and\nclosing balances of total investment)\n= 58,18,6692/-\nThus, the disallowance to the tune of Rs. 58,18,692/- as proposed to\nbe made by Id. PCIT by apportioning interest in the ratio of Total\nInvestments to Total

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

90,220/- after claiming deduction u/s 10AA at Rs. 7,21,35,825/-. The reassessment order u/s 143(3) read with 147 was passed by the Assessing Officer on 13.12.2017 wherein the assessee was found eligible for deduction u/s 10AA to the extent of Rs. 7,21,35,825/- as originally 3 M/s Amrapali Exports, Jaipur Vs. DCIT, Jaipur assessed

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

disallow the said provision\nand therefore, expenditure of Rs.5,92,10,074/- claimed by\nthe assessee was required to be added to the declared\ntotal income, suitably.\nb) Examination of assessment records by the Id. PCIT\nfurther revealed that\n(i) the company shown dividend income received from\nIMACID of Rs.9,82,58,313/- and paid tax at special rate

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

90 or, as the case may be, deduction from the Indian income-tax payable under section 91. Explanation 2 For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the poses of this sub-clause, any sum paid on account of any rate or tax levied includes any sum eligible for relief of tax under section 90A Explanation

GANESH KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BEGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

90,699/- 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

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)

disallowance could be made u/s. 11 by the CPC in an intimation issued u/s. 143(1) of the Act. 1.10. Section 143(1) as it was applicable for the relevant period reads as under: 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such return

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

disallowance of Rs. 90,55,18,397/- on\naccount of deduction u/s 80IA in respect of captive power\nplant.\n71. The facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the\nbusiness of manufacture and sale of cement and generation of\npower. The power undertakings of the respondent are eligible for\ndeduction under section

M/S. PRIME OCEANIC PVT. LTD. GANDHI NAGAR, UPLA SONAVA, SCHEME NO.8, ALWAR,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the disallowance so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

disallowed due to contravention of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act r/w section 195 of the Act. On perusal of the reply filed by the assessee, the agency agreement dated 11.02.2012 entered into between the assessee and M/s Trans Coral Shipping and copy of bills issued by M/s Trans Coral Shipping FZE, the AO observed that the sales promotion

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

90,898/- is disallowed by applying provisions of Section 14A r.w. rule 8D and added back to the taxable income