1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT v. Ram Kishan Verma

113 DTR 382High Court2015#6828 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69ASection 69B

Issues it is cited on

interest free advancesbusiness expediencycommercial expediencyfirst appealunexplained moneysection 115bbesalaryincome from other sourcespersonbusinessinteresttotal income

Judgments citing 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT v. Ram Kishan Verma

SH. SHASHANK PODDAR,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 850/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 250Section 57

…n/advances, disallowance has been rightly deleted. Further, when there was no agreement to charge interest from the persons to whom the assessee advanced short term loan/advance. the AO could not disallow part of the interest. CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) Assessee admittedly had its own funds and such funds/reserves being substantially higher than the advances to debtors, no notional interest or 6 Sh. Shashank Poddar, Jaipur. hypothetical interest could have been disallowed on such facts. It may be that the assessee on account of business expediency advanced money to sister concerns o…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…tner. Therefore, even the disallowance made @ 4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Reliance is also placed on the following cases. CIT v. Ram Kishan Verma [2016] 132 DTR 107/132 Taxman 107 (Raj.)(HC) CIT v. Vijay Solvex Ltd. [2015] 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC)' 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises. Respectfully following the view taken by our Jurisdictional High Court that the excess stock found with the assessee be taxed as business income of the assessee and therefore, we direct the ld. AO tax the said income as busine…

GRAPHTECH EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 3 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1441/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Feb 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Mrs. Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 68

…lowance out of interest\ncan be made.\nIn support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:\n• Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 379 ITR 347/ 236 Taxman 447 (SC)\n• CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Verma(2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj)\n• CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj)\n• CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom)\n\nC. Loans and Advances Were Made During the Year\n\nITA NO. 1441/JP/2024\nGRAPHTECH EXIM PVT LTD VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR\nIt is further submitted that the loans and advances in question were made during the\n assessment year in question. The timing of these advances is…

BAL REDDY KANDUNURI,ADILABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1203/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 153ASection 69A

…Therefore, even the disallowance made @ 4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Reliance is also placed on the following cases. .CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107/132 Taxman 107 (Raj.)(HC) . CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises." 15. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of ACIT vs Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd in Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Chokshi Hiralal Maganlal vs DCIT in ITA NO. 486/AHD/2008.” 11.…

SH. MAHENDRA SINGH,FLAT NO.303, ASHAPURA TOWER, PAOTA, JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaishri Mahendra Singh Vs Theacit Flat No. 303, Ashapura Tower Circle-3 Paota, Jodhpur Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Csdps 5573B

Section 2Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…n/advances, disallowance has been rightly deleted. Further, when there was no agreement to charge interest from the persons to whom the assessee advanced short term loan/advance, the AO could not disallow part of the interest. CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) Assessee admittedly had its own funds and such funds/reserves being substantially higher than the advances to debtors, no notional interest or hypothetical interest could have been disallowed on such facts. It may be that the assessee on account of business expediency advanced money to sister concerns or other concerns at a lower rate…

SURESH KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 167/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 167/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Suresh Kumar, Deputy Commissioner Of 114/10 (Ligh), Gandhi Road, V. Income Tax, West Tambaram, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai – 600 045. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aagps-0396-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Ar V Sreenivasan, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2023 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 69B

…Therefore, even the disallowance made @ 4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Reliance is also placed on the following cases. .CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107/132 Taxman 107 (Raj.)(HC) . CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises.” 15. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of ACIT vs Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd in ITA No. 157/JPR/2017, dated 08.08.2017 and also the Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Chokshi Hir…

M/S OVERSEAS LEATHERS,RANIPET vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 962/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Overseas Leathers, Deputy Commissioner Of No. 131, Sidco Industrial V. Income-Tax, Estates, Central Circle -3(3), Sipcot, Ranipet, Ranipet New No. 46, Old No. 108, District – 632 403 Mahatma Gandhi Road, [Pan: Aaafo-0375-L] Chennai – 600 034. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate : Shri. P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.03.2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2023

For Appellant: Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
Section 115BSection 69B

…Therefore, even the disallowance made @ 4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Reliance is also placed on the following cases. .CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107/132 Taxman 107 (Raj.)(HC) . CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises.” 15. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate bench of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of ACIT vs Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd in ITA No. 157/JPR/2017, dated 08.08.2017 and also the Ahmedabad Bench of ITAT in the case of Chokshi Hi…

M/S KULKARNI & SAHU BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,BHILAI(CG) vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), BHILAI(CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms our aforesaid observations

ITA 30/BIL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.30/Rpr/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 M/S. Kulkarni & Sahu Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. B-495, Cross Street-25, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai-490020 (C.G.) Pan :Aaeck3160C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…er. Therefore, even the disallowance made @ 4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Reliance is also placed on the following cases. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107/132 Taxman 107 (Raj.)(HC) CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) 4. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. No substantial question of law arises. 10. In view of the above judicial pronouncements as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the investment in the excess stock ought to be taxed under the head “business income” and not under…

CHEM COLOUR (INDIA) LIMITED ,KOTA vs. ACIT CIRCLE -2, KOTA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 166/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 92C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 166/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 cuke M/s. Chem Colour (India) Ltd. The ACIT G-209 (E), I.P.I.A Vs. Circle-2 Kota – 324 005 (Raj) Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACC9610 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Smt. Manisha Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of…

LAULS LIMITED ,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 5485/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…were given out of interest free funds. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following cases: - 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC). 17. The ld. DR submits that the assessee could not prove any commercial expediency in advancing the monies to sister concern and also Aggarwal Enterprises. She strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 18. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the commercial expediency is…

LAULS LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 3284/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…were given out of interest free funds. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following cases: - 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC). 17. The ld. DR submits that the assessee could not prove any commercial expediency in advancing the monies to sister concern and also Aggarwal Enterprises. She strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 18. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the commercial expediency is…

M/S. LAULS LIMITED,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2015-16

ITA 473/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.473/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 42, Neelam Flyover, 1St Floor, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.3284 & 5485/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 बनाम Lauls Limited Dcit Malhotra Khandelwal & Co., Vs. Circle1, 41-46, Hardware Chowk, Faridabad. Near Govt. Press, Faridabad, Haryana. Pan No. Aaacl3118P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

…were given out of interest free funds. For this purpose reliance was placed on the following cases: - 1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC); 3. CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC). 17. The ld. DR submits that the assessee could not prove any commercial expediency in advancing the monies to sister concern and also Aggarwal Enterprises. She strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 18. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In so far as the commercial expediency is…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BIKANER vs. SMT. ALPANA GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 45/JODH/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. Smt. Alpana Gupta, 4-A-15, Central Circle, Jawahar Nagar, Bikaner. Sriganganagar. Pan No. Aiepg 8893 R

Section 40

…given out of interest free funds. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the following decisions: - (i) CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC) (iii) CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) 8. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From perusal of the record, we fou…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR vs. M/S. MARUDHAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. , JODHPUR

In the result, revenue’s appeal stand dismissed

ITA 177/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.177/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.140/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-Circle-1 M/S. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Jodhpur. Umaid Bhawan Palace Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-0773-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. C.O. No.02/Jodh/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.177/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. C.O. No.14/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.140/Jodh/2019) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-Circle-1 बनाम/ Umaid Bhawan Palace Jodhpur. Vs. Jodhpur, Rajasthan. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcm-0773-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Pandey (CA) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. Sr. DR

…1 Marudhar Hotels Private Limited Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ जोधपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR माननीय "ी संद"प गोसांई, "ाियक सद" एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद" के सम"। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.177/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.140/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) DCIT-Circle-1 M/s. Marudhar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Jodhpur. Umaid Bhawan Palace V…

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

In the result, the addition so made by the AO is hereby set- aside

ITA 1088/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT) a
Section 40Section 40A(2)

…t. Ltd. vs. ACIT interest can be made. In support, reliance was placed on the following decisions:- • Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 379 ITR 347/ 236 Taxman 447 (SC) • CIT Vs. Ram KishanVerma(2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015) 113 DTR 382 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd. 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 16. The ld. DR is heard who has relied on the findings of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has explained the business necessity of taking the premises on rent and placing the security deposi…

BAJARGAN TRADERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the ground no

ITA 137/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Mar 2017AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C. A)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena (JCIT)
Section 133

…Therefore, even the disallowance made @4% is not justified and the same should be restricted @ 2% only. Reliance is also placed on the following cases: • CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107/132 Taxman 107 (Raj.) (HC) • CIT vs. Vijay Solvex Ltd. (2015)113 DTR 382 (Raj.) (HC) 3.3. The ld DR is heard who has relied on the order of the lower authorities. 3.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the advance was given to Smt. Rita Gupta in earlier years for construction of godown and the same was given on rent by the 12 ITA NO. 137/JP/17 M/s Baja…

1. CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (2019) 175 DTR 1 (SC); 2. CIT v. Ram Kishan Verma (113 DTR 382) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax