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)

35. In the same paragraph, the ratio decidendi recorded in Reliance Industries Limited case was relied on that where there is finding of fact that interest free funds available to the assessee were sufficient to meet to its investment, it will be presumed that investments were made from such interest free funds, and accordingly, only this very ground, the claim

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

35,962/- is required to\nbe made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as\nper the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders\nVa. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial\nexpediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds

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

35,962/- is required to\nbe made out of interest paid by the assessee on borrowed funds u/s 36(1)(iii) as\nper the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SA Builders\nVa. CIT (288 ITR 1) (since the assessee has failed to prove any commercial\nexpediency for utilizing interest-bearing borrowed funds

M/S WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT,KOTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 688/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: ………………………… M/S Wholesale Cloth Merchant Cuke Pr.C.I.T. (Central), Vs. Association, Jaipur (Rajasthan) New Cloth Market, Kota. Pan No.: Aaatw 0127 C Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Ranka & Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Advs) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Ambrish Bedi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 14/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Dated 22/03/2019 Passed U/S 12Aa(3) & 12Aa(4) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act). Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That In The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Pr. Cit(Central), Rajasthan, Jaipur Has Grossly Erred In Cancelling The Registration Of The Assessee Appellant Trust Under Section 12A Of The Act By Invoking Section 12Aa(4) Of The Act W.E.F. 01/04/2013. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Amend Any Ground On Or Before The Date Of Hearing.”

ab) …….. (b) where the total income of the trust or institution as computed under this Act without giving effect to the provisions of section 11 and section 12 exceeds the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax in any previous year, the accounts of the trust or institution for that year have been audited by an accountant

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. KAMLAPRABHA L/H OF LATE SHRI GOPAL LAL JI GOSWAMI, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross objection of the assessee is disposed off in terms of the observation made herein above

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

2, Jaipur on the date of transfer of jurisdiction as claimed. The order simply speaks of transfer of the jurisdiction. Hence, to take shelter of the transfer order to defend the limitation, is completely irrelevant and is of no help to the AO. Simply because the AO, holding charge presently, got the jurisdiction on 03.03.2023 by itself does not imply

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)

ab initio and not justifiable, therefore, deserve to be annulled. 2. That learned PCIT erred in holding that the order section 143(3) passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. Pr. CIT erred in applying provision of section

SAJJAD ALI,CHITTORGARH vs. DCIT(INTL)- JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

ab initio, the impugned order u/s 263 may kindly be quashed. 4. The appellant prays your honors indulgence to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.” 3. The brief facts as emerge from the assessment record are that the assessee filed

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

Accordingly, the same is dismissed

Gain on sale of land or building xiii. Loans/advance to related persons Consequently, a notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 08.04.2016 electronically and served upon assessee through email. Further notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 05.02.2021 dated 01.03.2021 was also issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response the assessee submitted compliance / explanation

SHRI SATISH CHANDRA KATTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] - Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

SIYARAM EXPORTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 6(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Capital gains - Special\nprovision for computation of full value of consideration in certain cases [Reference\nto Valuation Officer] Assessment year 2009-10 - Assessee earned short term\ncapital gain on sale of property - Assessee made a claim before Assessing Officer\nthat value adopted or assessed by stamp valuation authority was higher than fair\nmarket value - Value adopted by stamp valuation authority

MUSTAFA KATTHAWALA,KOTA vs. DCIT ACIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM\nआयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 1156/JPR/2024\nनिर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16\nMustafa Katthawala\nProp. Shakti Steels, Near Reliance\nPetrol Pump Jhalawar Road, IPIA\nKota.-324005.\nबनाम | The DCIT/ACIT,\nVs.\nCircle-2,\nKota.\nस्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AGPPK5043C\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nनिर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Devang Gargieya, Adv.\nराजस्व की ओर से / Reven

ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the\nimpugned assessment framed u/s 144 dated 31.03.2023 also kindly be\nquashed.\n3. The impugned notice u/s 148 dt. 29.03.2022 and order u/s 148A(d)\ndated 29.03.2022 are bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of\njurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ab initio.\n\n3.3 That, the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in justifying the reopening of\nassessment without establishing a nexus between the material in his possession\nand the belief, and therefore, the impugned reassessment order deserves to be\nquashed.\n\nWithout prejudice to above and in the alternative\n\n4. On facts and in the circumstances

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

capital gain. In the result, impugned notice is quashed. Petition is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid submissions the Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quashed the proceedings initiated under section 148/148A. Cross objection Ground No. 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeals erred in not quashing the assessment order which has been

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER vs. SHREE CEMENT LTD, BEAWAR

section 80IA(8) of the Act.\n30.10. Considering that TPO has disputed the Grid rate not to be\nthe market value in terms of provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct, we would like to state here that that unlike Section 80IA(8),\nthe word \"OR\" is missing in provisions of Section 80A(6) of the\nAct

PALSANA GRAM SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT-2, JAIPUR

In the result, all these three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 35 To 37/Jp/2021 Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2012-13 Palsana Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Cuke Pr.Cit-2, Vs. Limited, Jaipur. Village- Palsana Main Market, Palsana, Dist.- Sikar- 332402 (Raj) Pan No.: Aabap 8390 A Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shrawan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 04/08/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 02/11/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-2, Jaipur All Dated 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2010-11 To 2012-13. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

ab-initio and liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 2.1 Action of the Pr. CIT is invalid and without jurisdiction: It is submitted the action and direction of the ld. Pr. CIT is without jurisdiction and invalid on the facts and legal position because the ld. Pr. CIT has right or jurisdiction of revision u/s 263 only when