M/S ETERNAL HEART CARE CENTRE & RESEARCH INSTITUTE PVT. LTD. ,3A, JAGATPURA ROAD, NEAR JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

section 14A of the IT Act, 1961. Hence, the Ground No. 1 of the assessee is allowed. 3.1 Apropos Ground NO. 2 of the assessee, it is noted that Ld. PCIT vide show cause notice dt. 28.02.2023 issued u/s 263 (PB 1-3) observed that assessee has made following international transactions with the associate enterprises which have not been reported

RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORP. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, both set of cross appeals for the respective assessment years are disposed off with above directions

14A of the Income-tax Act. 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA on interest income including penal interest income and on other income. 6. (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

Section 14A cannot be invoked when no exempt income was earned by the assesse in the relevant year. We also take reference of decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs Worckhardt Hospitals Ltd (supra) wherein it is ordered that Assessee had not earned any exempt income during the assessment year under consideration

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

2,00,00,000 Nil Nil Development of Stones (CDOS) Prior period expenses 36,73,140 Nil Nil CSR expenses 6,41,42,000 6,41,42,000 1,41,42,000 Deduction u/s 80IA 15,33,95,189 Nil Nil Disallowance u/s 14A 71,75,575 71,75,575 71,75,575 Service Tax Receivable

AU SMALL FINANCE BANK LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-1

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

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

Section 115JB of the Act. 6. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.PCIT, Jaipur-1 has grossly erred in directing the AO for fresh assessment even after appreciating the certificate u/s 35AC(2) of the Act, as submitted during the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. 7. Under the facts and the circumstances

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

2,00,00,000 | Nil | Nil\n| Development of Stones\n| (CDOS)\n| Prior period expenses | 36,73,140 | Nil | Nil\n| CSR expenses | 6,41,42,000 | 6,41,42,000 | 1,41,42,000\n| Deduction u/s 80IA | 15,33,95,189 | Nil | Nil\n| Disallowance u/s 14A

APM INDUSTRIES LTD,BHIWADI, ALWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 203/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 APM Industries Ltd. SP-147, Industrial Area Bhiwadi, Alwar cuke Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-01, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCA 5114 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. L. Poddar jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT) a l

section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, 30 % of this amount which comes to Rs. 1,05,52,530/- was liable to be disallowed. The ld. PCIT further observed that the assessee received duty drawback of Rs. 2,37,355/-. However, there is no evidence on record that this amount has been offered to tax as business income

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

2) of the Act, amount of commission paid to a non resident outside India for the services rendered outside India will not fall in the category of income, and as such would not be chargeable to tax. So, the assessee was not liable to deduct TDS on the commission. Consequently, provisions of section 40(a) (i) of the Act were

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.” 5.5. The appellant submitted that the AO has satisfied himself that appellant had taken accommodation entry in the shape of unsecured loans. The appellant submitted that it raised objections before AO against such reasons wherein it was categorically contended that appellant had not taken any unsecured loans from any of the party mentioned

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2) to section 263\nof the Income Tax Act. Hence, the assessment order is set aside as\ndiscussed above and the AO is directed to examine the issues and pass\nsuitable order after according opportunity of being heard to the\nassessee.\"\nBasically, vide above order, ld. PCIT has issued directions for revision of\nassessment order on following issues:\n1. Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ANAMIKA CONDUCTORS LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

14A of IT Act. (4) Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 29,350/- for business exp. ignoring the fact that the assessee Company.” 2. Regarding ground no. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal and the ground no. 1 of the assessee’s cross objection, the ld. AR submitted that in appellant’s own case

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

14A exceeds the dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee. The Therefore, disallowance on account of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(iii) is hereby restricted to the extent of exempt income so claimed by the assessee. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 10. In ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation

M/S MITTAL PHARMA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

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

TDS on payments made to residents as specified in section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the disallowance shall be restricted to 30% of the amount of expenditure claimed. ” ITA 734/JP/2017_ 8 M/s Mittal Pharma P. Ltd. Vs ITO The Finance Minister while introducing the amendment in para 207 of the Budget Speech has stated as under: - “207. Currently, where

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

14A, read with Rule 8D, of Rs. 23,31,312 ["Issue No. 1”]. • Interest of Rs. 55,810 on delayed payment of TDS not eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) or Section 37 [“Issue No. 2

POOJASHISH INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

14A and addition towards unclaimed liability were also deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The assessee is now in appeal against the addition of Rs. 18,35,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 of the Act. 4. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case are exactly identical to that

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

14A. One has to read entire letter together and from this letter one cannot infer that the A.O. referred the matter for special audit for getting the books of accounts prepared. The facts in the instant case are distinguishable from the facts of CIT vs. Bajrang Textiles (supra) in which the audit was referred just one day prior