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

section 14A r.w.r 8D and confirmed an addition of Rs. 24.90 lakhs (i.e. proportionate expenditure of Rs. 22.03 lakhs and half percent of average investments of Rs. 2.86 lakhs) and directed the AO to delete the balance addition of Rs. 35,67,55,372/- thereby, partly allowing the assessee appeal. 14. Now the revenue and assessee preferred appeal before

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 14A r.w.r 8D and confirmed an addition of Rs. 24.90 lakhs (i.e. proportionate expenditure of Rs. 22.03 lakhs and half percent of average investments of Rs. 2.86 lakhs) and directed the AO to delete the balance addition of Rs. 35,67,55,372/- thereby, partly allowing the assessee appeal. 14. Now the revenue and assessee preferred appeal before

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 14A r.w.r 8D and confirmed an addition of Rs. 24.90 lakhs (i.e. proportionate expenditure of Rs. 22.03 lakhs and half percent of average investments of Rs. 2.86 lakhs) and directed the AO to delete the balance addition of Rs. 35,67,55,372/- thereby, partly allowing the assessee appeal. 14. Now the revenue and assessee preferred appeal before

DCIT,C-7, JAIPUR vs. BHARAT MOHAN RATURI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and that of the C

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 The DCIT Circle-7 Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira Colony, Bani Park Jaipur 302 015 (Raj) LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANPR 7066G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent CO No. 2/JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 413/JP/2022 ) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2013-14 Shri Bharat Mohan Raturi 161, Indira

4. The learned AO has erred in allowing deduction of Rs 94,39,201/- under section disallowing deduction of Rs 94

PROFESSIONAL AUTOMOTIVES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMMU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

Section 194 and 200 were challenged. It was noted in P. RatnakarRao and others V. Govt. Of A.P. and others (1996 (5) SCC 359) that the discretion given under Section 200(1) to the State Government to prescribe maximum rates for compounding the offence is not unguided, uncanalised and arbitrary. It was, inter alia, held as follows: ……………….. ………………. It is indisputable

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the Act. Section 80P(4) reads as under:- (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative bank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank.” As per section 80P(4), a cooperative society engaged

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

94 Taxmann.com 15 had an occasion to examine similar contention and it was held that though the co-operative bank pursuant to the insertion of Sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, however, as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

94 Taxmann.com 15 had an occasion to examine similar contention and it was held that though the co-operative bank pursuant to the insertion of Sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, however, as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN COOPERATIVE DAIRY FEDERATION LTD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

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

94 Taxmann.com 15 had an occasion to examine similar contention and it was held that though the co-operative bank pursuant to the insertion of Sub-section (4) of Sec. 80P would no more be entitled for claim of deduction under Sec. 80P of the Act, however, as a co-operative bank continues to be a co-operative society registered

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the\nAct. Section 80P(4) reads as under:-\n(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative\nbank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative\nagricultural and rural development bank.”\nAs per section 80P(4), a cooperative society engaged

WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,KOTA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), KOTA, KOTA

In the results, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

disallowing the deduction referred to section 80P(4) of the\nAct. Section 80P(4) reads as under:-\n(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply in relation to any co-operative\nbank other than a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative\nagricultural and rural development bank.”\nAs per section 80P(4), a cooperative society engaged

M/S. AJMER ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD.,AJMER vs. PR.CIT, AJMER

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

disallow the same during the assessment proceedings which makes the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. Thus, the order passed by the A.O. on 07.12.2017 is considered erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and a show-cause u/s 263 is hereby

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

94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

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

94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

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

94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

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

94,412/- u/s 40(a) (ia) of the Act including Rs. 45,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia)/40A(3))and thus, the same is hereby sustained. Disallowance of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- (vii) The AO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 1,56,38,649/- by observing that the appellant has not complied with the provisions of section

MODERN INSULATORS LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

4,94,000/- during the year under consideration. Once there is no fresh investment during the year under consideration, then the disallowance of interest expenditure has to be considered by taking into account the 6 ITA No. 74/JP/2019. M/s. Modern Insulators Ltd., Jaipur. availability of funds in the year of investment. The AO for the assessment year

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)

4. Section 14A Disallowance – No Disallowance Made Despite Earning Exempt Income The assessee earned exempt income and had substantial investments, yet failed to make any suo motu disallowance under Section 14A.This is contrary to:  PCIT v. Caraf Builders & Constructions (P.) Ltd. [2019] 414 ITR 122 (Del HC)  CIT v. State Bank of Patiala [2018] 99 taxmann.com 286 (SC)  DCIT