RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,118/- on account of indirect\nexpenses and nil on account of direct expenses as there were no\ndirectly attributable expenses.\nIn view of above, it is prayed that the order passed by ld.AO is neither\nerroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and Revision\norder passed by Id. PCIT deserves to be set aside.\nIt is further

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

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

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

14A - As decided in Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT]Amendment to\nsection 14A of the Act which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be\nretrospective.\n• Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.\n(2022) 7 TMI 1093:Whether ITAT erred in relying

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 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

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

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

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

14A.(AO Pg 5-6 ) 3 Investment in AOPs (PB 3,82,10,700/- The investment in the AOP is 41) made to obtain the liquor contract in Rajasthan. The AOP was obtaining liquor [Initial investment contract in earlier years and in as such, was commercial F.Y 2012-13 investment only. (A.Y 2013-14)] Total

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

14A.(AO Pg 5-6 ) 3 Investment in AOPs (PB 3,82,10,700/- The investment in the AOP is 41) made to obtain the liquor contract in Rajasthan. The AOP was obtaining liquor [Initial investment contract in earlier years and in as such, was commercial F.Y 2012-13 investment only. (A.Y 2013-14)] Total

DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. M/S. JOY SYNDICATE & ENCLAVE PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

section 80113(10) are applicable or not on the sale booked after the insertion of both these clauses. 5. The AO arrived the findings that the assessee company made investment in unquoted shares and Mutual Fund of Rs. 5,29,99,200/- but no expenditure has been debited to P/L account. Under the circumstances, the disallowance u/s 14A is calculated

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

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

section 36 (i)(iii). The assessee firm did not borrow any fresh money during the year and even have no opening borrowed money. Bank overdraft account is not borrowed money, because overdraft account is against the assessee own bank FDRs. It means bank overdraft is assesee own money taken out of FDR account temporarily. As and when the assessee needed

VIKAS OIL MILL,KHAIRTHAL vs. ITO WARD 1(5), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 721/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s Vikas Oil Mill बनाम ITO, Ward 1(5), Alwar G-26/27, Ind. Area, Khairthal, Vs.301404, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AABFV2322F अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

section (set-aside/263) 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by Income-tax Officer- 1(5), Alwar [ for short AO]. 2 Vikas Oil Mill vs. ITO 2. The assessee challenges that order on the following grounds: - “1. The Ld. Assessing officer has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances