CAREER POINT LIMITED,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain on sale of Equity oriented Mutual Fund in which total fund invest was Rs. 1,99,000 only. The assessee was neither incurred any expenditure to earn this exempt nor claimed any expenditure in return of income. 2. As per the provisions of section 14A

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains and complete account statement of mutual fund holding for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018. Thus, complete details in relation to the investments made by the Appellant in its group concerns and mutual funds were asked and provided to the assessing officer. The assessing officer only after considering the said information, passed the assessment order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income shall be chargeable to income tax under the said head. 31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction of the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

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

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income shall be chargeable to income tax under the said head. 31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction of the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

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

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income shall be chargeable to income tax under the said head. 31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction of the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital borrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD., KOTA

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income\nshall be chargeable to income tax under the said head.\n31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction\nof the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital\nborrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA vs. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LTD, KOTA

gains of business or profession and postulates to which income\nshall be chargeable to income tax under the said head.\n31. In this way, in computation the income under the said head deduction\nof the amount of interest paid by the assessee in respect of capital\nborrowed is to be allowed, where the capital was borrowed for the purpose

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. VIGYAN LODHA, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

2): "9. In our considered opinion, in such case assessee cannot be held that he earned Long Term Capital gain through bogus company when he has discharged his onus by placing all the relevant details and some of the shares also remained in the account of the appellant after earning of the long term capital gain. 10. Learned A.R. contention

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

capital fund and the assessee has not disallowed any expenditure u/s 14A against the above exempt income. The AO issued a show cause notice as to why disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D of the IT Rules should not be made. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.11.2015 where it Rajasthan State Industries Development & Investment Corp. Ltd. was submitted that

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

gain as a motive was never in sight, and therefore such strategic investment were outside the scope of provisions of sec 14A of the Act, in so far as any expenditure incurred (if any) for such strategic investment made, is fully allowable u/s 36(1) of the Act. Hence in view of above, it is clear that the provisions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR vs. M/S. OM METAL INFRAPROJECT LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Hon’Ble Apex Court In Cit V/S M/S Sbbj In Slp (C) No. 16249/2014? (Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 44,02,000/- U/S 14A R.W.R 8D Of The I.T. Act When The Assessee Has

14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable. 38. In the present case, we do not find any mention of the reasons which had prevailed upon the Assessing Officer, while dealing with the Assessment Year 2002-2003, to hold that the claims of the Assessee that

PRIME GOLD INFRA STEEL LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

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

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

capital gain by invoking the provision of section 50C of the IT Act, 1961. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowing for Rs. 20,06,902/- u/s 14A

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

2. In this regard para wise comments on paper book submitted by the assessee is as follows: Page 1-2: The assessee has submitted statement showing details of year wise investment in shares of Limited Companies. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1992-93 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

2. In this regard para wise comments on paper book submitted by the assessee is as follows: Page 1-2: The assessee has submitted statement showing details of year wise investment in shares of Limited Companies. It may be noted that the assessee has provided details since FY 1992-93 till FY 2013-14. This office cannot comment

CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR vs. LATE SHRI SATISH KUMAR AGARWAL, L/H SMT. SANTOSH AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

14A as discussed in para Rs. 73,332/- no. 7 Add : Disallowance u/s 80G as discussed in para Rs. 2,685/- no. 8 Add : Addition of unexplained Cash found Rs. 32,69,455/- during search as discussed in para no. 9. Add : Addition of on account of excess stock Rs. 2,32,09,339/- found as discussed in para

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)

14A r.w. rule 8D and added back to the taxable income of the assessee.’’ Based on these observations the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2019. 4. On culmination of the assessment proceeding the ld. PCIT called for the assessment record. On perusal of assessment record, the ld. PCIT observed that while computing income under

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

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

capital gains tax. It is an undisputed position that respondent assessee is an investment company and had invested by purchasing a substantial number of shares and thereby securing right to management. Possibility of sale of shares by private placement etc. cannot be ruled out and is not an improbability. Dividend may or may not be declared. Dividend is declared

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)

capital are applied for investment by the appellant and no nexus is found with regard to investments made. However, it is noted that the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant has paid interest expenses on investments to earn exempt income, hence, the AO applied section 14A read with rule 8D and disallowed Rs. 78,311/-. The appellant has not established

M/S BHANDARI HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT (Appeals)-2, Jaipur, has erred in not allowing the assessee’s 2 M/s. Bhandri Health Care Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. claim that a sum of Rs. 3,45,357/- should