DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. NARESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the results the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the

Bench: Him The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, [ For Short “Act” ] By The Acit, Circle, Sri Ganganagar [

section 14A cannot be invoked where no exempt income was earned by assessee in relevant assessment year. PCIT Vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 216 DTR 191/ 288 Taxman 384 (Del.) (HC) No disallowance u/s 14A can be made if the assessee had not earned any exempt income. Insertion of Explanation of sec. 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 which

M/S. MAHALAXMI SAWS PVT. LTD., H-39, ROAD NO.2B, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SIRSI ROAD, BINDAYAKA, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(2) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

purchase of plant & machinery, which was directly related to business purpose. However, the AO completely ignored the submission of assessee and made the disallowance. At this juncture, our attention was drawn towards the Balance Sheet which are available at page No. 15 and 20 of the paper book and from perusal of the same, we observed that out of total

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case, however, still no compliance was made on the date fixed. This shows the non-cooperative attitude of the appellant. In view of the non-compliance

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

bogus, sham and nothing other than a racket of accommodation entries. We do notice that the AO made an attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent's unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under sections 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged

KANTA AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus i.e. Unno Industries Ltd. Thus, the AO added Rs. 21,39,336/- to total income of assessee under section 68 of the Act and commission paid @ 6% to the tune of Rs. 1,28,360/- was added total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act and simultaneously disallowed Rs. 83,493/- under section 14A. Thus

KANTA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(5), JAIPUR

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

bogus i.e. Unno Industries Ltd. Thus, the AO added Rs. 21,39,336/- to total income of assessee under section 68 of the Act and commission paid @ 6% to the tune of Rs. 1,28,360/- was added total income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act and simultaneously disallowed Rs. 83,493/- under section 14A. Thus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

14A of the Act of Rs. 1250/- is unwarranted. Accordingly, the same is deleted and grounds No. 3 to 10 of appeals are allowed.” There is no dispute that the assessee’s own interest free fund was many times more than the investment made for both the assessment years to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- for assessment year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S BARAN ROLLER FLOUR MILLS PVT. LTD., KOTA

14A of the Act of Rs. 1250/- is unwarranted. Accordingly, the same is deleted and grounds No. 3 to 10 of appeals are allowed.” There is no dispute that the assessee’s own interest free fund was many times more than the investment made for both the assessment years to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- for assessment year

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. SHRI GYANDEEP KHEMKA, JAIPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection of

14A of Rs. 2,57,264/- totaling for Rs. 65,04,443/- despite the amendment made to the Rule 8D w.e.f. 02.06.2016 made by the AO.” 2. Ground no. 1 is regarding the addition made by the AO on account of Client Code punching error was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. DR has submitted that

M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

14A Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), both assessee and department is in appeal before us. 9. Rival contentions have been heard the record perused. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee placed on record the order of this Tribunal in the case of Kota Dall Mill for the A.Y. 2010-11 and M/s Baran Roller

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

14A Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), both assessee and department is in appeal before us. 9. Rival contentions have been heard the record perused. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee placed on record the order of this Tribunal in the case of Kota Dall Mill for the A.Y. 2010-11 and M/s Baran Roller

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S. AGRASEN AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,, KOTA

14A Aggrieved by the order of ld CIT(A), both assessee and department is in appeal before us. 9. Rival contentions have been heard the record perused. At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee placed on record the order of this Tribunal in the case of Kota Dall Mill for the A.Y. 2010-11 and M/s Baran Roller

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

purchases, gross profit and closing stock. In these facts of the case the application of N.P. rate of 14.50% in place of 14.32% on sales means that expenses claimed in P & L A/c have been disallowed to the extent of addition. The claimed expenses cannot be disallowed unless it is held that the same are not for the purposes

AGRASEN PRIMSES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

bogus loss claimed by the assessee. The fact\nrelated to that claim is that the assessee has made out of the disclosed\nsources in the shares of the companies as mentioned herein below, after\nmaking the investment in 7 – 8 month the assessee company noted that the\ninvestment made by the assessee getting deteriorated and therefore, sold\nthose share purchased

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

bogus until there is any material or evidence to prove the contrary. She has further observed that the AO in his remand report has solely relied upon the unexecuted survey u/s 133A of the Act and therefore even if the information/report of the Investigation Wing is considered as a relevant evidence, however in view of the above discussion that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTA vs. M/S SHREE AGENCIES PVT. LTD., KOTA

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

14A.” 2. Regarding Ground No. 1, briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has claimed loading and unloading expenses of Rs. 41,18,961/- in its EOU Division. As per Assessing officer, majority of the expenses are incurred in cash and claimed on self made vouchers and no supporting evidence is attached with these vouchers. Therefore

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

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

14A of I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently considering information received by\nId. AO from ITO (Inv.), Unit-1 and AIU, Kolkata, the assessment was reopened by\nissue of notice u/s 148 dated 18.03.2019, in response to which the assessee filed\nreturn of income and requested for supply of reasons recorded, which were\nprovided to the assessee vide letter dated