CIT v. Ram Kishan Verma

Sh. Shashank Poddar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

…ent to meet its investment, it could be presumed that funds were given to subsidiaries out of interest free funds and therefore, interest referable to funds given to subsidiaries is allowable as deduction under sec. 36(1)(iii). CIT Vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (HC) AO observed that interest bearing loans had been diverted towards interest free loans/advances to friends and relatives for non-business purpose and accordingly disallowed the interest paid on borrowed loans. It was held that since the advances were far below the available capital of the assessee and the AO was not able to pin pointed…

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…the amount advanced to Smt. Rita Gupta who is a wife of one of the partner. 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 asse…

Graphtech Exim Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT Cen Cir 3 Jaipur, Lic Building Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…e funds are more than the interest free advances, no disallowance out of 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 Kishan Verma(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) C. Loans and Advances Were Made During the Year ITA NO. 1441/JP/2024 GRAPHTECH EXIM PVT LTD VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR It is further submitted that the loans and advances in question were made during the assessment year…

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)

…me cannot be disallowed. To drive home to this contention, the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon decision of CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd. [2013] 358 ITR 0295 (SC) and also jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.). As regards the renovation expenditure the disallowance of interest considering, it has capital in nature the view taken by the lower authorities is not correct. Because the assessee has out of common kitty incurred the expenditure of renovation. Lower authorities did not establish direct nexus of following and incurring the renovation…

Ram Ratan Jangir, Amer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -7(2), Jaipur

In the result ground no. 1 raised by the

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…bsidiary companies, on the facts of this case. The Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed in error in holding that the assessee not have sufficient own funds to advance the interest free advances to the sister concerns. [Para 9] " • CIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.)/[2015] 64 taxmann.com 358 (RAJ HC) (DPB40-43) holding as under: "12. As far as the disallowance of interest is concerned, admittedly the assessee had an opening capital of Rs. 5,70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, th…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

…he Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed in error in holding that the assessee did Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. not have sufficient own funds to advance the interest free advances to the sister concerns. [Para 9] ” 6.3.4CIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.)/[2015] 64 taxmann.com 358 (RAJ HC) (DPB40-43) holding as under: “12. As far as the disallowance of interest is concerned, admittedly the assessee had an opening capital of Rs. 5,70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, th…

Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt Ltd, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

…he Commissioner (Appeals) was indeed in error in holding that the assessee did Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. not have sufficient own funds to advance the interest free advances to the sister concerns. [Para 9] ” 6.3.4CIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.)/[2015] 64 taxmann.com 358 (RAJ HC) (DPB40-43) holding as under: “12. As far as the disallowance of interest is concerned, admittedly the assessee had an opening capital of Rs. 5,70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, th…

Allen Career Institute, Kota vs. JCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the Grounds No

…ing the facts as above, we feel that the AO was not justified in making any disallowance. Hence, disallowance is deleted.” 3.3 The Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court has also affirmed the above orders vide para 12 & 14 in the case of CIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (DPB 1-11) holding as under: “12. As far as the disallowance of interest is concerned, admittedly the assessee had an opening capital of Rs. 5,70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, therefore, the tribunal has rightly c…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 620/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Allen Career Institute The JCIT CP-6, Indra Nagar Vs. Range-2 Kotas Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAEFA 3972 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Advocate & Shri Dewang Gargieya, Advocate jktLo…

Allen Career Institute, Jaipur vs. JCIT, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

…ing the facts as above, we feel that the AO was not justified in making any disallowance. Hence, disallowance is deleted.” 3.3 The Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court has also affirmed the above orders vide para 12 & 14 in the case of CIT v/s Ram Kishan Verma (2016) 132 DTR 107 (Raj.) (DPB 1-11) holding as under: “12. As far as the disallowance of interest is concerned, admittedly the assessee had an opening capital of Rs. 5,70,74,967/- of his own and the advances, if at all, being interest free, is to the extent of Rs. 98,93,950/- which is far below the capital of the assessee and, therefore, the tribunal has rightly c…