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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

disallowance of Rs. 35,92,45,372/- was made out of the interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds which was claimed under section

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

disallowed as the AO has already estimated the net profit rate. Hence, the additions on account of these transactions are hereby deleted. 41. In respect of transactions reported at item no. 40, 41, 42, 84 & 92, as per the assessee’s explanation, the same have been debited to various site advances account. No explanation has been offered as to whether

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A. While making the disallowance, Ld. AO observed that assessee has made investment in shares of M/s Anil Investments Special Steels Industries Ltd. at Rs.4,33,92

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

disallowance under section 24(a) in pursuant to the revision order passed under section 263 of Rs. 1,92,000/-. Thus

A DAGA ROYAL ARTS,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 40A(3) does not in blanket manner mandate disallowance in respect of all situations where cash payment has been made. It was submitted that the cash payments were made on the specific condition put up by the seller and they being resident of Jaipur or belonging to the same family does not make any difference. In this regard

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

disallow correct expenditure and other administrative expenditure, as per section 14A r.w.r. 8D of the Act, and therefore Assessing Officer was right in making the addition. 9. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In the present appeal, the assessee has taken four different grounds challenging the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Though

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

PARIS ELYSEES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

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

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

disallowance of deduction claimed under 69[section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C.— Deductions in respect of certain incomes", if] the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or 15 Paris Elysees India Pvt. Ltd. (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS

SH. ASHOK SONI,27, MAHADEO DAGDI NAGAR, BEHIND ADARSH NAGAR, GALI NO.2, BEAWAR vs. CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us.

92,041/- which was processed U/s 143(1) and in terms of intimation dated 10.12.2019 issued by CPC, it made disallowance of Rs. 10,12,628/- 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

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

disallow the deduction claimed as expenditure in respect of which payment is not made by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft. The payment by crossed cheque or crossed bank draft is insisted on to enable the assessing authority to ascertain whether the payment was genuine or whether it was out of the income from disclosed sources. The terms of section

M/S SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION P. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Section 43B can’t be invoked for making additions on account of tax liabilities where the same has not been claimed as deduction?” In the case, Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. In view of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) (Supra), as reproduced

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Section 43B can’t be invoked for making additions on account of tax liabilities where the same has not been claimed as deduction?” In the case, Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. In view of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) (Supra), as reproduced

SHREE SIDDHI VINAYAK INDUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result ITA NO. 01/JPR/2021 for A

Section 43B can’t be invoked for making additions on account of tax liabilities where the same has not been claimed as deduction?” In the case, Hon’ble Court has held as under: 6. We have heard both the parties. 7. In view of the observations made by the Delhi High Court in Noble & Hewitt (India) (P) (Supra), as reproduced

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance made by invoking the provision of Section 14A of Rs. 12,92,57,568/-, disallowance of depreciation on securities

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

disallowance made by invoking the provision of Section 14A of Rs. 12,92,57,568/-, disallowance of depreciation on securities

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

disallow that part of expenditure which is incurred for earning the dividend income from RCVF which in no case can exceed Rs. 1.59 lakhs. 5.5 It was further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maxopp Investment Limited vs. CIT vide order dated 12.02.2018 (101 CCH 92) has held that the dominant purpose for which the investment