SHIV KRIPA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3

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

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

carrying forward and set off of such loss under section 24(2).” Since, in the present case also, on conjoint reading of both first and second proviso, it is clear that no disallowance is called for where assessee deducts tax and pays the same on or before due date of furnishing Return of Income u/s 139(1). Similarly

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. M/S MODERN INSULATORS LTD., JAIPUR

TDS on payment made to foreign parties holding that payment of commission to these parties was in lieu of services rendered by them for the business purposes of the assessee and holding that circular no. 7 of 22-10-2009 it not clarificatory in nature and is not applicable with retrospective effect. ITA No. 586/JP/2012

SUCHITA BHATIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS, then that will in a way give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officers to do complete scrutiny and thus circumvent the provision of ACT, which require mandatory approval of competent authority to convert limited scrutiny to complete scrutiny. Conclusion:- under limited scrutiny Assessing Officer has very little scope and he must abide by the provision

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

TDS )Rs. 22,947/-) Shree Cement Limited, Beawar. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals). In response to the notice issued under section 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the assessee filed written submissions along with paper book etc. The ld. CIT (A) after considering the submissions of the assessee partly allowed

SHRI SUNDER LAL ADVANI,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOTA

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

TDS on interest by brushing aside assessee’s reasonable explanations and submissions and the learned CIT (Appeals), Kota also erred in confirming the same to the extent of Rs. 55,820/- without there being any basis. 4. That the ld. Assessing Officer further erred in disapproving the carried forward Speculation loss

M/S. GURU KRIPA CAREER INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,SIKAR vs. PR.CIT-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

TDS Amount Landlord rented Rent premises Jagpal Singh Jyoti Nagar Class room 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- HUF Piprali Road coaching building Sikar ½ portion Smt. Mamkaur Jyoti Nagar Class room 12,00,000/- 1,20,000/- Piprali Road coaching building Sikar ½ portion Gurukripa Jyoti Nagar Office and Class 26,46,000/- 2,64,600/- Career Piprali Road room coaching

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

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

loss account. There is a nexus between expenditure incurred and investment made by the assessee. Additionally, managerial/ administrative cost for making the investment cannot be denied. Accordingly, by invoking the provision of section 14A r.w. rule 8D of the IT Rules, he made disallowance of Rs.2,44,530/-, being 1% of the average investment of Rs.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

loss of Rs. 13,98,55,528/- as was declared in return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Thereafter the A.O. completed assessment u/s 153A / 143 (3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 15,73,020/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35AD amounting to Rs. 13,86,30,120/-, addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

loss of Rs. 13,98,55,528/- as was declared in return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Thereafter the A.O. completed assessment u/s 153A / 143 (3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 15,73,020/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35AD amounting to Rs. 13,86,30,120/-, addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

loss of Rs. 13,98,55,528/- as was declared in return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Thereafter the A.O. completed assessment u/s 153A / 143 (3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 15,73,020/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35AD amounting to Rs. 13,86,30,120/-, addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

loss of Rs. 13,98,55,528/- as was declared in return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Thereafter the A.O. completed assessment u/s 153A / 143 (3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 15,73,020/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35AD amounting to Rs. 13,86,30,120/-, addition

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S KSHEER SAGAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, all these five appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita Nos. 1158 To 1162/Jp/2019 Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Cuke M/S Ksheer Sagar Developers Vs. Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Hotel Royal Orchid, Opp.- Bsnl Jaipur. Office, Near Durgapura Flyover, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. Pan No.: Aacck 3154 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Rajendra Singh (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.R. Sharma, (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur All Dated 31/07/2019 For The A.Y. 2011- 12 To 2015-16 Respectively.

loss of Rs. 13,98,55,528/- as was declared in return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act. Thereafter the A.O. completed assessment u/s 153A / 143 (3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 15,73,020/- by disallowing deduction claimed u/s 35AD amounting to Rs. 13,86,30,120/-, addition

A3LOGICS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR -1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

carried out by you during the year under consideration. 3. Furnish the details of deductions, exemptions and rebate claimed during the year along with supporting documents. 4. Furnish the statement of set off/adjustment of current year/carried forwarded loss against any income of the year under consideration. 5. Provide the comparison of income reported, deductions/exemptions/rebate claimed, current year/carried forwarded loss

SHRI VIKRAM SINGH SHEKHAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SIKAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

Carry forward of loss vis-a-vis assessment under s. 115J— Assumption of jurisdiction under s. 154 is permissible only to correct an error which is apparent and not where a debatable issue is involved—Views of different High Courts were not uniform on the issue involved in the instant case at the time when the rectification proceedings were taken

DHANUKA REALTY LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

carry forward as unabsorbed losses. Keeping in view of findings on merits, this issue becomes infructuous hence, the ground is dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.’’ 2.3 Aggrieved by the order of the ld CIT(A) is in appeal before this Bench on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 3.1 The Ground

PARADISE INFRASTRUCTURE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, JAIPUR

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

Bench: The Learned Ao.

forward during the year under consideration. 16 Paradise Infrastructure vs. ACIT It is submitted that the perusal of the balance sheet reveal that the position of fresh loans is as under: - (i) Loan from Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd Rs. 1.70 Crore (ii) Unsecured Loans of Rs. 7,52,136/- (125391921-124639785) Copies of balance sheet and P&L account

ARGUS GOLDEN TRADES INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, JAIPUR

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

carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who upheld the levy of penalty and observed that the delay was not of one or two days but there was delay of 1024 days, hence, it reveals a wilfull attempt for non compliance of statutory provisions. In the provisions of section 272A(2)(K), the word “shall” is mentioned

M/S RAJ AUTO WHEELS P LTD.,AJMER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER

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

forward similarly in the next year AY 2011-12 where, bills/invoices were raised 29 ITA 396/JP/2015 RAJ AUTO WHEELS (P) LTD. VS ACIT, CIR-1, AJMER and after adjustment only Rs. 5.15 crore remained in the balance which was further carried over to the next year as evident from the chart shown at page 66, 67of the Paper Book.He also