M/S TARUN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,WARD NO.24, NEAR BHAGAT SINGH CHOWK, SURATGARH vs. CPC, BANGALORE/ ITO, WARD-1, SRIGANGANAGAR, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. Brr Kumar

2(24)(x) of the Act. In accordance with the statutory provision, the departmental authorities have made the disallowances. 7. The assessee has contested the disallowance broadly on the following grounds: • In the tax audit report, the auditor has only mentioned the details of contribution received from employees for various as to attract adjustment under section

NAHAR COLOURS AND COATINHGS PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OFINCOMETAX, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

2(24)(x) of the IT. Act, 1961. It was categorically observed by the undersigned that during the assessment proceedings the FAO neither made any query in this regard nor examined the case of disallowance of Rs. 15,24,003/- in terms of section

SHRI SHESHAVTAR 1008 SHRI KALLAJI VEDPITH EVAM SHODH SANSTHAN,NIMBAHERA, CHITTORGARH vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD, UDAIPUR, AAYKAR BHAWAN, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowing the legal and legitimate claim of the appellant solely on the ground that the claim was made during the assessment proceedings i.e. Acquisition of Fixed Assets, Purchase of Books and Periodicals and Payment of endowment fund to university of. This approach is arbitrary, unjustified, and against the principles of natural justice. The circular specifically emphasizes the duty

THE LAKE PALACE HOTELS & MOTELSPRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. PCIT,CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 14A of the I T Act for disallowance of expenses related to investments which may be in the form of dividend on shares. 2. Disallowance of employee’s contributions to provident fund u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x

AJMER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,AJMER vs. CIT(EXEMPTION)/ ITO (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR / JODHPUR

In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Borad

x................ 5.2 In the view of the above discussion, it is very evident the there is no merit in the claim of assessee and the AO is correct in denying the benefits of Section 11 and 12 to the assessee trust vide amended provisions of section 13(8)(effective from 01.04.2009) read with first and second proviso of section 2

PUSHAPRAJ KOTHARI,JASOL vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER, BARMER

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Years : 2018-19 Puspapraj Kothari Vs. The Acit, Yashwal, Nakoda Road, Jasol, Barmer Circle, 344024 Barmer Pan No: Aaupk1365N Appellant Respondent

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

MONA MARBLES PVT. LTD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

MEGA TEX PRINTS,PALI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE / ITO, WARD-1, PALI

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

MONA MARBLES PVT. LD. ,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, the captioned appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

AKBAR MOHAMMAD,NAGAUR vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), JODHPUR

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavahearing Though Video Conferencing

24)(x) of the Act was correct or not. It appears that the Tribunal below, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., reported in 2009 Vol.390 ITR 306, held that the deletion was justified. Being dissatisfied, the Revenue has come up with the present appeal. After

SHRI SIDDHESH KUMAR GAUR ,JODHPUR vs. ADIT, CPC, ACIT, CIRCLE-3, BENGALURU / JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

disallowance under section 40A(3) in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ any of the grounds of appeal on or before date of hearing. 3. The issue of ESI/PF payment has attained finality by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services

SRM SPINNERS LIMITED,BHILWARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotesrm Spinners Ltd., Vs. Cit(A) / Nfac Sukh Shanti, Sukh Delhi-110002. Shanti, Sabun Marg, Bhilwara – 311001, Rajasthan, Pan/Gir No. : Aascs1833L Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit – Dr Date Of Hearing 18.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/S 154 & 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 2(24)(x) is found to be valid and proper in fact and law. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the disallowance

ANAND SWAROOP MENAWAT,JODHPUR vs. CPC, BENGALURUE / ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is hereby confirmed. In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant are hereby dismissed.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,03,072/- in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI which should be deleted

DURGA PUROHIT,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance made by the AO of Rs.2,23,895/- being contributions to PF. 3 DURGA PUROHIT VS ITO, WARD 2 (1), UDAIPUR 2.2 After hearing the ld. DR and perusing the materials available on record, it is noticed that the AO made the addition of Rs.2.23.895/- on account of late deposit of PF & ESI contribution of the employee

ROSHAN LAL BOHRA,PALI vs. ADIT, CPC / ITO, WARD-2, PALI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) by the AO is confirmed. The assessee fails on this ground. ROSHAN LAL BOHRA VS. ITO, WARD 2, PALI 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR prayed that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,72,029/- in respect of employees contribution to PF and ESI which should

BABA BEARINGS PVT LTD,BORANADA vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

disallowed the amount of Rs.3,08,878/- because of not timely deposit of the employees contribution of PF and ESI under respective laws which in first appeal was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) holding as under:- ‘’5.2 Since the law now clearly states that the provisions of Section 43B shall not apply and was deemed never to apply

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. U.N. AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD., UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

disallowance is called for. 6.1 Learned counsel pointed to the sharp decline in the business of the assessee by submitting that the turnover of the assessee in assessment year 2011-12 was at Rs.239.85 crores which came down to Rs.25.55 crores in the years under consideration. According to him, this decline at 1/10th of the turnover in assessment year