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)

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

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)

249, made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. Club Expenses Department has also challenged the impugned order whereby Learned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs. 4,20,337/-, made by the Assessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club expenses. Loans and advances Department has also

SH. DAL CHAND SHARMA,ALWAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), ALWAR, ALWAR

Capital Gain of Rs. 62,00,000/- is made,\nhowever the assessee sold the said Property for Rs. 31,00,000/-\nonly. As per assessment order the Id. AO has reopened the case\nunder section 148 on dated 27.03 2022 information fagged by the\nrisk management strategy formulated in this regard suggesting that\nincome chargeable to tax has escaped assessment

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\nClub Expenses\nDepartment has also challenged the impugned order whereby\nLearned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs.4,20,337/-, made by the\nAssessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club\nexpenses.\nLoans and advances\nDepartment has also challenged

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

249, made by the Assessing Officer on\naccount of disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act.\nClub Expenses\nDepartment has also challenged the impugned order whereby\nLearned CIT(A) has deleted addition of Rs.4,20,337/-, made by the\nAssessing Officer, while disallowing to the assessee, payment of club\nexpenses.\nLoans and advances\nDepartment has also challenged

MUNNI DEVI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, JAIPUR

Capital gain of Rs. 14161287/- assessed by him.\n3.1\nIt is evident from assessment order that assessee put forth his claim for\nallowability of deduction u/s 54B and 54F before Ld. A.O. and produce before him copy\nof purchase deed of agricultural land for purchase of agricultural land for Rs.\n1,36,40,000/- for allowable deduction

PRAMILA AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gain earned by assessee was merely an\naccommodation entry (even though assessee has neither purchased nor sold the shares\nthrough any of these broking firm ).\n\nThe Ld. AO further relied upon the conclusion drawn by SEBI in respect of these\ntransactions where the SEBI had made enquiries in respect of unexpected fluctuations\n/ gains in the price

SMT. LAKSHMI AGARWAL ,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-4(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

Bench: recording satisfaction for issuance of notice since the information is specific. Thus the reasons recorded for re-opening is on borrowed satisfaction and not on any satisfaction by the AO. The

gain against the loss incurred in other shares. 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming addition made by AO u/s 69C of the Act by holding that the assessee has paid Rs.84,300/- being 6% of the sale proceeds of the shares as commission. 2.1 The Ground No. 1 of the assessee relates

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2, AJMER, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

Section 80IA(8), the word "OR" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the ACIT vs. Shree Cement Ltd. Act. It is noted that as per provisions of Section 80A(6), if any goods or services whether sold or acquired falls within the category specified domestic transactions of Section 92BA then in such case it is mandatory

ALOK KUMAR JAIN ,PEARL PLEASURE vs. ACIT CIR-6, JAIPUR, NEW CERNTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, BHAGWAN DASS ROAD, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN,

Bench: Him.

Section 68, the first condition is that the amount must be credited in the books of accounts, Ld. AO has nowhere mentioned that he found any sum credited in appellant's books of accounts. Further, as stated above, Alok Kumar Jain vs. ACIT/DCIT the Appellant already submitted the sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the exemption claimed

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR , LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be based on cogent material and should not be arrived at in a casual manner. It is submitted that Section 132(4A) (i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC-2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be based on cogent material and should not be arrived at in a casual manner. It is submitted that Section 132(4A) (i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course

MACRO TOWNSHIP PVT LTD,288-289 MAHAVEER NAGAR DURGAPURA JAIPUR vs. DCIT CC -2 JAIPUR, LIC BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

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

Section 153C, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Satisfaction of the Assessing Officer should be based on cogent material and should not be arrived at in a casual manner. It is submitted that Section 132(4A) (i) clearly stipulates that when inter alia any document is found in the possession or control of any person in the course

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)

249-274/Vol-2. Appeal filed by the revenue before Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur was dismissed. Copy of the order of Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur is at PB page 275-277/ Vol-2. (iii) AY 2017-18 The assessment of immediate preceding year AY 2017-18 was completed u/s 143(3) wherein no addition u/s 14A was made. The copy

SHRI MADHO LAL SAINI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are allowed

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

capital gain on sale of the land. Now the assessee has filed appeal before us. Ground nos. 1 & 2 are inter-connected and inter-related and challenging the validity of reopening of the case of the assessee under section 147 read with section 148 being not in accordance with the provisions of section 151 of the IT Act. 3. Before

SUWALKA AND SUWALKA PROPERTIES AND BUILDERS PVT LTD,KOTA, RAJASTHAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLCE, KOTA, KOTA, RAJASTHAN

Bench: Him Challenging The 2 Suwalka & Suwalka Properties & Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S.143(3)Of The Income Tax

capital gain has accrued to the assessee. CIT (A) further held that funds received by the assessee is unaccounted income of the assessee and chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the act. On the matrix as held by the Honorable Delhi high court the above issue falls within the scope of the provision of section

SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6,, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

249\n(SC) applied; Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. (judgment dt. 23rd\nOct., 2007 of the Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1149 of\n2007) affirmed.\n(3) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RENU\nAGARWAL\nIN THE ITAT JAIPURITA No. 764/JP/2015(2017) 185 TTJ 0036\n(Jp) ((UO))\nLevy of Penalty u/s.271(1)(c)—Deletion—AO levied penalty