AHLUWALIA ERECTORS & FABRICATORS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOTA,KOTA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIR-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result the appeal of\nthe assessee in ITA no 199/JP/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes

disallowance of ₹1,95,27,206/- under section 43B\nHowever, the disallowance has been made only because the assessee failed

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

95,73,056/- should be allowed. 4 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Without prejudice to above, if for any reason it is treated as taxable income in AY 2013-14 in that case the appellant submits that direction may kindly be given to allow the deduction in AY 2012-13. 2. That the ld. Assistant

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

95,73,056/- should be allowed. 4 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Without prejudice to above, if for any reason it is treated as taxable income in AY 2013-14 in that case the appellant submits that direction may kindly be given to allow the deduction in AY 2012-13. 2. That the ld. Assistant

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

95,73,056/- should be allowed. 4 ITA NO. 201(6)/JP/2017 M/s. Chambal Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd. Without prejudice to above, if for any reason it is treated as taxable income in AY 2013-14 in that case the appellant submits that direction may kindly be given to allow the deduction in AY 2012-13. 2. That the ld. Assistant

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 made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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 made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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 made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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 made U/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act is deleted. 16.1 As regards the disallowance sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find merits in the alternative plea of the ld AR that the amendment brought into the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act by the Finance Act, 2015 has been held as remedial in nature

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)

95,189 Nil Nil Disallowance u/s 14A 71,75,575 71,75,575 71,75,575 Service Tax Receivable 1,93,00,000 1,93,00,000 Set aside Excess provision of IT 8,10,90,469 Nil Set aside written back Disallowance of deduction 3,72,56,000 Nil Set aside on account of reduction in nature of land

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

95,189 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575\n| Service Tax Receivable | 1,93,00,000 | 1,93,00,000 | Set aside\n| Excess provision of IT | 8,10,90,469 | Nil | Set aside\n| written back\n| Disallowance of deduction | 3,72,56,000 | Nil | Set aside\n| on account

DR B LAL CLINICAL LABORATORY PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

Bench: Us.

section 2 applies. These amendments will take effect from 1st April, 2021 and will accordingly apply to the assessment year 2021-22 and subsequent assessment years.” 17. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against disallowance of Rs. 1,95

AHLUWALIA ERECTORS AND FEBRICATIONS PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. ACIT CIR-1 KOTA , KOTA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

95,585/-: Disallowance of alleged unverifiable salary expenses. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 11.01.2019 which was unfortunately dismissed vide order dt. 19.10.2022. 16 Ahluwalia Erectors & Febricators Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT Against the above order, the assessee filed this appeal. GOA-1: General Ground. GOA-2: Rs.5,32,219/-: Disallowance

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

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

disallowance of Rs.6,95,850/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF/ESI as prescribed under the respective act but before due date of filling return of income. The assessee challenged the said adjustment before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and contended that as per the binding precedents if the payment is made even though belatedly but before

LALIT KUMAR CHABRA,KOTA vs. ITO WARD 2(2), KOTA

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

disallowance of Rs.6,95,850/- on account of late deposit of employees contribution towards PF/ESI as prescribed under the respective act but before due date of filling return of income. The assessee challenged the said adjustment before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and contended that as per the binding precedents if the payment is made even though belatedly but before

NEERAJ PUROHIT,JAIPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessees is allowed

disallowance was made by the AO under section 143(1) of the Act on the basis of remarks in the relevant column of Form no. 3CD report attached with the return of income. In the appeal petition, the appellant has stated that total income returned at Rs. 95

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

section 143(1)(a) of Income Tax Act, therefore, the adjustments so made are bad in law and should be deleted." 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee is engaged in the business of educational publication. For the impugned assessment year, return of income was filed admitting total income of Rs.5

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

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: The Hearing.

95,261/-. Thereafter the assessee revised its return of income on 8th February, 2006 and declared loss of Rs. 22,58,484/-. Thereafter, a survey under section 133A of the IT Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 10th March, 2006 wherein various discrepancies were found. After the survey the assessee again revised its return

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

section 14A. 5. Thus interest to be disallowed should be with reference to amount of investment made out of borrowed funds, which comes to Rs.4,12,63,005/= ( Rs.67312353/= minus Rs.26049348/=) and the amount of interest attributable to this amount by applying average rate of interest of 12.89% (Please refer to PB-7) comes to Rs.53,18,801/=. Thus your