VAIBHAV SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO 1(2), JAIPUR

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

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance, by invoking section 14A r.w.r 8D, of Rs. 24,90,000/-. It is submitted that the provisions of 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

disallowance, by invoking section 14A r.w.r 8D, of Rs. 24,90,000/-. It is submitted that the provisions of section

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance, by invoking section 14A r.w.r 8D, of Rs. 24,90,000/-. It is submitted that the provisions of section

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

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

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

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74 taxmann.com 90

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

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74 taxmann.com 90

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

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74 taxmann.com 90

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

disallowance under section 40(a) (ia) does not arise, if assessee complies with the provisions of section 1940(6). In view of this, we do not find any merit in Revenue appeal." (xiv) It may be mentioned that in the case of Soma Rani Ghosh Vs DCIT [2016] 74 taxmann.com 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

NIRMAL KUMAR BARDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

90,435/- is deleted. 5.0. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.’’ 4.8 Respectfully following the order of this Bench in the case of Sanjay Porwal vs CPC Bengaluru/ITO, Ward 6(4), Jaipur (supra), the disallowance made on account of employees contribution towards PF deposited before due 17 ITA 60/JP/2021 Nirmal Kumar Bardiya vs ACIT, Circle

RMC GEMS INDIA LTD,JAIPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGLORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd (supra) and Indian Geotechnical Services (supra). As far as the applicability of amendment made

GOSIL EXPORTS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -I, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Return.’’

section 36(1)(va) of the Act is called for when the amounts are deposited before filing the return of income. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble 13 ITA 163/JP/2022 Gosil Exports (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills (P) Ltd (supra

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