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

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

7. Chambal Fertilizer shall pay the compensation for all Government as well as private property, which may come under the submergence area before construction of anicut. 9 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 8. The Government reserves the right to demolish or reduce the height of Anicut in future for any department requirement or in public

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

7. Chambal Fertilizer shall pay the compensation for all Government as well as private property, which may come under the submergence area before construction of anicut. 9 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 8. The Government reserves the right to demolish or reduce the height of Anicut in future for any department requirement or in public

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

7. Chambal Fertilizer shall pay the compensation for all Government as well as private property, which may come under the submergence area before construction of anicut. 9 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. 8. The Government reserves the right to demolish or reduce the height of Anicut in future for any department requirement or in public

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

94,39,201/- made by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F and considering the same u/s 54 of the IT Act even when in the original grounds of appeal the assess didn’t mentioned the change in section from section 54F to 54.’ On the above ground, the following is submitted: 1. It is submitted that the assessee filed

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)

94 taxmann.com 434 (Mumbai Trib.) These rulings affirm that disallowance under Section 14A is mandatory, and failure to do so constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars, attracting penalty. CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 dated 11.02.2014 Ratio: Clarifies that Section 14A disallowance is mandatory where exempt income is earned, even if no expenditure is claimed by the assessee. 5. Explanation 1 to Section

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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 & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

7)\nSLP dismissed against order of High Court that where AO had triggered penalty proceedings\nu/s 271(1)(c) against assessee, it was necessary for him to indicate broadly as to limb under\nwhich penalty proceedings were triggered.\n\nCIT Vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (2016) 242 Taxman 180 (SC)(Case laws compilation\nindex PB 8)\nWhere Tribunal relying

MAYUR UNIQUOTERS LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NFAC, NEW DELHI

Appeals of the assesse are disposed of in the terms indicated as above

disallowable expense. TheFinance Act 2022 has amended section 40 by inserting Explanation 3 with effectfrom 1-4-2005 to provide that the term ‘tax’ shall include and shall be deemed tohave always included any surcharge or cess. In light of the amendment effectedretrospectively, it is held that Education cess is not an allowable Expense and theadditional ground raised

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

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

94,873/- Partly Confirmed by the ld 69 CIT(A) to the extent of Rs 59,873 and the balance deleted 5. Violation of section 40A(3)- 1,41,34,476/- Deleted by the ld CIT(A) (Cash payments above Rs. 20,000/-) 6. Unexplained Expenditure u/s 1,18,34,723/- Deleted by the ld CIT(A) 69C 7. Unaccounted

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

7. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From the record, we noticed that the assessee has incurred interest expenses of Rs.14,97,602/- on borrowing, which were disallowed by the AO by invoking the provisions of Section 14A of the Act. While making the disallowance, the A.O. observed that the assessee

M/S MORANI CARS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD-6, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 40A(2b) without considering the uses of premises for which rent was paid hence the disallowance may be restricted in accordance with actual use. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. ACIT erred in making addition by disallowing interest amounting to Rs. 2160000/- invoking the provision u/s 40A(2b) which is further reduced

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

94 taxmann.com 433 too the head note may be referred too. Same reads as under: Section 35AD of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Specified business, deduction of expenditure in respect of (Hotel) - Assessment year 2012-13 - Whether for avoiding benefit of a three star hotel under section 35AD, what is not relevant is date of certification for classification