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)

36(1)(iii) of the Act in respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group companies/associates , and to remit the matter to Learned Assessing Officer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds available with the assessee during the assessment years under consideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

SHRI GULAB CHAND MEENA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) , 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. 49/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Gulab Chand Meena, A.C.I.T.(Osd), Vs. Village- Dantali, Tehsil- Range-7, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abupm 2026 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)- 3, Jaipur Dated 06/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of Rs. 5,78,571/- Made By Ld.Ao Arbitrarily & Accordingly Treating It As A Long Term Capital Gain When All The Conditions Prescribed U/S 54F Were Fulfilled By Assessee. 1.1. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Further Erred In Not Considering The Fact That Assessee Had Submitted The Valuation Report In Support Of His Claim Of 2

Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), wherein following grounds have been taken. “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 5,78,571/- made by ld.AO arbitrarily and accordingly treating it as a long term capital gain

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)

capital gain. M/s. AU Small Finance Bank Limited & Avas Financiers Limited 4.4 The ld. PCIT also noticed that the provision of section 43D was not applicable in assessee's case, being NBFC. In the financial statements, NPA was not categorized and depicted as per the norms laid down in RBI's master direction i.e. into substandard assets, doubtful assets

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act\nin respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group\ncompanies/associates\nand to remit the matter to Learned Assessing\nOfficer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds\navailable with the assessee during the assessment years under\nconsideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

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

36(1)(iii) of the Act\nin respect of the amounts said to have been invested in subsidiaries/group\ncompanies/associates\nand to remit the matter to Learned Assessing\nOfficer for decision afresh so as to record finding as to interest free funds\navailable with the assessee during the assessment years under\nconsideration, after verification of all relevant documents relied on behalf

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed contribution to Provident Fund by 1 day due to technical issue in the website of State Bank of India (SBI) which was not attributable to the appellant. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and erred in confirming

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

VIA of Rs. 1,07,406/- declared total Income of Rs.5,12,690/-. 3.1 During assessment proceeding, the ld. AO noted that the assessee has shown sundry creditors of Rs. 4,76,48,248/- against the turnover of Rs. 2,87,60,719/- implying that the sundry creditors are more than the turnover, in any business the waiting time

ROSHAN LAL,ALWAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHIWADI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

36 were not uploaded. I assure the Hon'ble Tribunal that the delay was not deliberate or due to any negligence on my part. It was purely due to reasons beyond my control, and I have acted promptly to file the enclosures as soon as the circumstances permitted. I firmly believe that my case has merit, and if the delay

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or Sh. Magendra Singh Rathore profession" has to be allowed as a deduction in computing the Income-tax under section 28 of the Act. 20. In Madhav Prasad Jatia v. CIT AIR 1979 SC 1291, this Court held that the expression "for the purpose of business" occurring under the provision is wider

MAGENDRA SINGH RATHORE,ALWAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

gains of business and profession the\ndisallowance of alleged excess interest as per provision of section\n57(iii) is not correct. When the matter was carried to Id. CIT(A),\nthough he observed that the contention of the assessee has merits\non the legal ground raised but he has confirmed the finding of the\nId. Assessing Officer only

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

VIA of the Act. Thus only after initiation of enquiries by the Department\nu/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act\non 26.03.2018 appellant has revised his return 09.06.2018.\n6.8 Thus in view of above, the action of the assessee in respect of claim of such\nillegitimate deduction, loss under

AJOY SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

VIA of the Act. Thus only after initiation of enquiries by the Department\nu/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act\non 26.03.2018 appellant has revised his return 09.06.2018.\n6.8 Thus in view of above, the action of the assessee in respect of claim of such\nillegitimate deduction, loss under

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

VIA of the Act. Thus only after initiation of enquiries by the Department\nu/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act\non 26.03.2018 appellant has revised his return 09.06.2018.\n6.8 Thus in view of above, the action of the assessee in respect of claim of such\nillegitimate deduction, loss under

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

VIA of the Act. Thus only after initiation of enquiries by the Department\nu/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act\non 26.03.2018 appellant has revised his return 09.06.2018.\n6.8 Thus in view of above, the action of the assessee in respect of claim of such\nillegitimate deduction, loss under

AJOY SHARMA ,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

VIA of the Act. Thus only after initiation of enquiries by the Department\nu/s 133(6) of the Act on 12.03.2018 and after issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act\non 26.03.2018 appellant has revised his return 09.06.2018.\n6.8 Thus in view of above, the action of the assessee in respect of claim of such\nillegitimate deduction, loss under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S RIGID CONDUCTORS (RAJ.) PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S CHOKHI DHANI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized

DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, LIC BUILDING vs. M/S GEE VEE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed

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

capital gain is chargeable on its compulsory acquisition. 2. The appellant Pvt. Ltd. company before submitting the ground- wise submissions, the appellant submits the following undisputed facts of the case:– (i) That during the course of search and seizure action carried under section 132 of the IT Act by the Department no incriminating document was found and/or seized