M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT LTD. 1/2 LIC FLATS, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, SECTOR-6, JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee's appeal is allowed

capital gains arising before the 1st day of April, 1946, or after the 31st day of March, 1948, and before the 1st day of April, 1956. Explanation 2.—The expression "accumulated profits" in sub-clauses (a), (b), (d) and (e), shall include all profits of the company up to the date of distribution or payment referred to in those

CENTRE FOR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION TRUST,JAIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION, JAIPUR

40A(3) of the\nAct, salary has been kept at just less than 20,000/- since the same would have been liable\nto be disallowed if salary payment was greater than 20,000/- in cash. This shows that it is\na pre meditated action on the part of the assessee trust with the motive of siphoning off\nfunds for personal

PINK CITY JEWEL HOUSE PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

40A(2)(b) of the Act and even the show cause\nnotice is silent about that.\nIn our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect\nprinciples to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly\nanalysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not\nthink that

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

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

b) Though there was no motive of the assessee to invest the funds with an\nintention to earn the income by way of interest, it has earned the interest\non idle funds. This income has no relevance with the business activity of\nthe assessee and is not capital receipt eligible to be deducted from the\nproject cost. Funds have neither

DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JPR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-6 JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. BARMER LIGNITE MINING COMPANY LIMITED, UDYOG BHAWAN, TILAK NAGAR JPR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

BARMER LIGNITE MINING CO. LTD.,C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in view of our detailed order (supra)

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

40A(2)(b). Therefore it has obtained a report from an accountant u/s. 92E of the Act in Form 3CEB and also e-filed the same on 28.11.2016 (PB 148-156). 22. Therefore, the observation of Ld. CIT (A) that it has not submitted the evidence of statutory compliance is factually incorrect. Thus the return filed by assessee

SANJIV PRAKASHAN,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

capital gain and\naccumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be\ndeleted.\"\nOriginal order in this case was passed\nu/s 143(1) - AO made disallowance for\nPF/ESI by passing rectification order u/s\n154- held AO was not justified – appeal\nof assessee allowed\n65-66\n8\nPrincipal\nCommissioner of\nIncome-tax v. SPPL\nProperty\nManagement

VAIBHAV GLOBAL LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s.11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted.” [Emphasis Supplied] 8. Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench, in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021 : Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] held that [PB : 3]: 10 VAIBHAV GLOBAL LTD VS DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR 7. Failure to adhere to the mandatory

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AJMER

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

40A, while the non-obstante clause of Section 115JB(1) is only and only in respect of subsection (1) of Section 115JB. Further, explanation 1 below Sec. 115JB(2) defines ‘book profit’. There is no non obstantive clause in the said provisions. It is very important to note that there is no non-obstantive clause to sub-section (2

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1194/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- I, Jaipur Dated 13/09/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. (A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Income By Disallowing Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Allowing The Said Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. (B) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Exercising The Powers Of Enhancement Under Section 251(1)(A).

40A(2)(b). 1.18 However, Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, allowed the rate of interest on such loan taken from Shri Udai Kant Mishra to the extent of 14%. Even ld. CIT(A), in the preceding years, did not make any disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) and accepted the loan to have been utilized for the purpose of business

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 147/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Aman Exports International DCIT, Vs. G-93 Epip Sitapura, Industrial Area Circle

BECKHAUL DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

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

capital gain and accumulation of income u/s 11(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 deserves to be deleted. (Emphasis Supplied] 1.6. Further, attention is also drawn towards the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in matter of Vinod Malik [ITA no. 1635/Del/2021: Assessment Year 2019-20 dated 25.11.2022] wherein it was held that 7. Failure to adhere