JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

275/-.The above disallowance have been deleted in CIT(A). 2015-16 18.08.2017 57,42,060 2,00,000 Wages discussed in assessment order. The ld. AO made lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of salary & Wages and staff welfare expenses. 2016-17 No Regular Scrutiny 2017-18 No Regular Scrutiny 3.2 During the survey, the assessing

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

275/-.The above disallowance have been deleted in CIT(A). 2015-16 18.08.2017 57,42,060 2,00,000 Wages discussed in assessment order. The ld. AO made lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of salary & Wages and staff welfare expenses. 2016-17 No Regular Scrutiny 2017-18 No Regular Scrutiny 3.2 During the survey, the assessing

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

275/-.The above disallowance have been deleted in CIT(A). 2015-16 18.08.2017 57,42,060 2,00,000 Wages discussed in assessment order. The ld. AO made lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of salary & Wages and staff welfare expenses. 2016-17 No Regular Scrutiny 2017-18 No Regular Scrutiny 3.2 During the survey, the assessing

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

275/-.The above disallowance have been deleted in CIT(A). 2015-16 18.08.2017 57,42,060 2,00,000 Wages discussed in assessment order. The ld. AO made lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of salary & Wages and staff welfare expenses. 2016-17 No Regular Scrutiny 2017-18 No Regular Scrutiny 3.2 During the survey, the assessing

JS ENGINEERING WORKS,SAWA, CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, all these 6 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blestay Application No. 8 To 13/Jodh/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 620, 621, 622, 624, 625 &628/Jodh/2024) (Assessment Year – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Js Engineering Works Dcit, Central Circle, J-16, M/S. Sclj & Associates, Chittorgarh. Lal Kothi Yojana, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur – 302015. Pan No. Aaffj 9260 Q

275/-.The above disallowance have been deleted in CIT(A). 2015-16 18.08.2017 57,42,060 2,00,000 Wages discussed in assessment order. The ld. AO made lump sum disallowance of Rs. 2,00,000/- out of salary & Wages and staff welfare expenses. 2016-17 No Regular Scrutiny 2017-18 No Regular Scrutiny 3.2 During the survey, the assessing

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

disallow the claimed capital expenditure of Rs.5,25,52,586/-. Since, the assessee was hit by provision of section 2(15) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the total taxable income comes to Rs.6,71,88,566/- (Rs.1,46,35,981/- + Rs.5,25,52,586/-), therefore, the assessment done at NIL income by the AO is erroneous as the final computation

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

275/- Rs. 4,46,980/-” Interest from total loan 11.2 The ld. AO based on total area of building with that of area given on rent has allowed. The interest claim to the assessee contending that the balance property is not completed and therefore, proportionally, the ld. AO has disallowed the interest payment of Rs.3,16,663/-. The relevant computation

SAMPAT LAL LODHA ,NATHDWARA vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

275/- Rs. 4,46,980/-” Interest from total loan 11.2 The ld. AO based on total area of building with that of area given on rent has allowed. The interest claim to the assessee contending that the balance property is not completed and therefore, proportionally, the ld. AO has disallowed the interest payment of Rs.3,16,663/-. The relevant computation

M/S. PYROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,UDAIPUR vs. PR. CIT, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Section 263 of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA 3/JODH/2021 PYEROTECH ELECTRONICS PVT LTD VS PR. CIT, UDAIPUR 1. That the Impugned order u/s 263 of the Act dated 18.02.2020 and notice u/s 263 are bad in law and on facts of the case and hence the same may kindly