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)

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to DAV Trust Management Society. ITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

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)

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group companies. Disallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society Department has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs. 82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to DAV Trust Management Society. ITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

2,11,779/- i.e. 3 % of Rs. 70,59,315/- was also added to the income of the assessee as commission paid as per provision of section 69C of the Act. 6 Nirmal Kumar Agrawal vs. DCIT 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos

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

2 km of Municipal limit of\nChaksu Tehsil and accordingly not a capital asset as per law. Hence no capital gain tax\nis leviable thereon u/s 45 of the IT Act, 1961. The long term capital gain tax levied by\nA.O. on the sale of said agricultural land is wrong and unjustified.\nIn view of the above discussion and evidence

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

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of\ndisallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group\ncompanies.\nDisallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society\nDepartment has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs.\n82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to\nDAV Trust Management Society.\nITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

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

254/- that was made by the Assessing Officer on account of\ndisallowance of amount of loans and advances to subsidiary/group\ncompanies.\nDisallowance of contribution to DAV Trust Management Society\nDepartment has also challenged deletion of addition of Rs.\n82,10,270/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing contribution to\nDAV Trust Management Society.\nITAT No. 1099/JPR/2024

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. M/S MAN PRAKASH TALKIES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

capital gain of Rs. 66,76,744/- are separate issues (raised vide separate grounds of appeal) and these are different from the issue raised in ground no. 3 of Department appeal for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. In view of the above, as the ground no. 2 for A.Y. 2009-10 has not been adjudicated upon by the Hon. Bench

DEPUTY COMMISISONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR vs. M/S. MAN PRAKSH TALKIES PVT. LTD, JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-02, Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s Man Prakash Talkies Pvt Ltd. Near Yadgar, M. I. Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6231 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@C.O. Nos.11 & 12/JP/2018 (Arising out of ITA Nos.406 & 407/JP/2018) fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment

capital gain of Rs. 66,76,744/- are separate issues (raised vide separate grounds of appeal) and these are different from the issue raised in ground no. 3 of Department appeal for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. In view of the above, as the ground no. 2 for A.Y. 2009-10 has not been adjudicated upon by the Hon. Bench

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act\n1961 states \"Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a\nCAPITAL ASSET\" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head\n\"CAPITAL GAIN\".\nWhereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered \"SALE VALUE\" as\n\"CAPITAL GAIN\", whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during\nassessment proceedings/u/sec. 154 even sale

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

2) That since assessee is regularly filing it's capital account, balance\nsheet from year to year & no defects therein found by A.O. So\nseparately filing the documents for Cost, Cost of Improvement is\nimmaterial since all such cost is for financial year 1992-93 (Cost of\nland) & cost to assesseeis appearing from year to year in balance\nsheet

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head "CAPITAL GAIN". Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered "SALE VALUE" as "CAPITAL GAIN", whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings/u/sec. 154 even sale deed

VINODKUMAR AGARWAL,AJMER vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act 1961 states "Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET" shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head "CAPITAL GAIN". Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered "SALE VALUE" as "CAPITAL GAIN", whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings/u/sec. 154 even sale deed

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

2) That since assessee is regularly filing it's capital account, balance\nsheet from year to year & no defects therein found by A.O. So\nseparately filing the documents for Cost, Cost of Improvement is\nimmaterial since all such cost is for financial year 1992-93 (Cost of\nland) & cost to assesseeis appearing from year to year in balance\nsheet

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

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

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

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

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

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

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

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

section 45(1) of Income Tax Act’ 1961 states “Any profits or against arising from the transfer of a CAPITAL ASSET” shall be chargeable to Income Tax under the head “CAPITAL GAIN”. Whereas the A.O. & CIT(A) both have considered “SALE VALUE” as “CAPITAL GAIN”, whereas complete details were filed to A.O. during assessment proceedings / u/sec. 154 even sale deed

GANPATLAL AGARWAL,BEAWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER, AJMER

2) That since assessee is regularly filing it's capital account, balance\nsheet from year to year & no defects therein found by A.O. So\nseparately filing the documents for Cost, Cost of Improvement is\nimmaterial since all such cost is for financial year 1992-93 (Cost of\nland) & cost to assesseeis appearing from year to year in balance\nsheet

RAJRANI SINGHAL,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\nallowed for statistical purposes

2) That since assessee is regularly filing it's capital account, balance\nsheet from year to year & no defects therein found by A.O. So\nseparately filing the documents for Cost, Cost of Improvement is\nimmaterial since all such cost is for financial year 1992-93 (Cost of\nland) & cost to assesseeis appearing from year to year in balance\nsheet