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)

8D has been determined by him. What we find surprising is that the Id CIT (A) has totally ignored the whole discussions and findings of the AO which have been rendered in the context of section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and has not given any findings as to why the provisions of section

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

8D has been determined by him.\nWhat we find surprising is that the Id CIT (A) has totally ignored the whole\ndiscussions and findings of the AO which have been rendered in the context of\nsection 36(1)(iii) of the Act and has not given any findings as to why the\nprovisions of section

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

8D has been determined by him.\nWhat we find surprising is that the Id CIT (A) has totally ignored the whole\ndiscussions and findings of the AO which have been rendered in the context of\nsection 36(1)(iii) of the Act and has not given any findings as to why the\nprovisions of section

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)

capital gain on sale of Equity oriented Mutual Fund in which total fund invest was Rs. 1,99,000 only. The assessee was neither incurred any expenditure to earn this exempt nor claimed any expenditure in return of income. 2. As per the provisions of section 14A of Income Tax Act,1961 and rules 8D

RASHLEELA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains or\ndividend income. Such investments had been made by the assessee to\npromote subsidiary company into the hotel industry and were on\naccount of business expediency and dividend there from is purely\nincidental. Therefore, the investment made by the assessee in its\nsubsidiary is not to be reckoned for disallowance u/s 14A r.w. rule 8D.\nDelhi ITAT

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)

8D and added back to the taxable income of the assessee.’’ Based on these observations the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 22.12.2019. 4. On culmination of the assessment proceeding the ld. PCIT called for the assessment record. On perusal of assessment record, the ld. PCIT observed that while computing income under the head profit

GIRNAR SOFTWARE PRIVATE LIMITED,6TH FLOOR, JAIPUR TEXTILE MARKET, B-2, NEAR MODEL TOWN, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. PCIT – 2, JAIPUR, NEW CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING

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)

capital gains and complete account statement of mutual fund holding for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018. Thus, complete details in relation to the investments made by the Appellant in its group concerns and mutual funds were asked and provided to the assessing officer. The assessing officer only after considering the said information, passed the assessment order

AGRASEN ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Him.

Capital Gains u/s 111A ii. Expenditure of Personal Nature iii. Refund Claim iv. Duty Drawback 3 Agrasen Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd. 3.1 The appellant-assessee filed return of income for AY 2018-19 on 27.07.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 11,07,21,870/- under normal provision of Income Tax Act and Rs. 11,28,92,617/- u/s 115JB

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

8D\n5. That during the year under consideration, i.e., A.Y. 2018-2019 no exempt\nincome was earned by the assessee appellant from its investments with Mutual\nFund & share in partnership firm. Refer: computation of income [PB 202-203],\ndetails of investment held [PB 628]. Thus section 14A of the Act was not\ninvocable. The Id. Assessing Officer being satisfied

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).

Section 28 which falls under the head Profits and Gains from Business and Profession. 1.27 The borrowings from Shri Udai Kant Mishra, on which interest expenses were incurred by the assessee company in the current and the preceding years, were all parked in various Fixed Assets, at different points of time during the current and the preceding years. None

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DANGAYACH,A-34-A, RAM NAGAR, SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

capital are applied for investment by the appellant and no nexus is found with regard to investments made. However, it is noted that the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant has paid interest expenses on investments to earn exempt income, hence, the AO applied section 14A read with rule 8D and disallowed Rs. 78,311/-. The appellant has not established

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAIPUR, STATUE CIRCLE

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

capital infusion in the partnership firm. The income of dividend and profit of partnership firm are not included in the total income of the assessee and therefore direct expenditure incurred for making such investment cannot be allowed against the taxable income. As regards the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the earlier assessment years, we note

BIMAL ROY SONI,J L N MARG vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, N.C.R. BUILDING

In the result, appeals of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 239 & 240/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Bimal Roy Soni 11, Chetak Marg, JLN Marg Jaipur cuke Vs. DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur NCR, Building LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFPPS 1588 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Akhilesh Kumar Jain (C.A.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a lquokb

capital infusion in the partnership firm. The income of dividend and profit of partnership firm are not included in the total income of the assessee and therefore direct expenditure incurred for making such investment cannot be allowed against the taxable income. As regards the decision of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the earlier assessment years, we note

M/S TRIMURTY BUILDCON PVT.LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, 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. 46/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinoba 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 : Miss. Shivangi Samdhani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/08/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi Dated 25/03/2021 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Assessee Company For The Sole Reason Of The Appeal Having Been Filed With Delay. The Action Of Id. Cit (A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Setting Aside The Order Of Id. Cit (A). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Id. Cit(A), Has Erred In Coming To The Conclusion That The Appeal Of The 2

8D. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the deleted the entire disallowance U/s 14A of the Act but enhanced the income of assessee company by making disallowance of Rs. 53,78,282/- u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act on account of interest expenses incurred on loan taken. 8. From perusal of the record, we observe that

DEREWALA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT CIR-6, JAIPUR

Appeal is partly allowed; while

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

gains of business or profession",— (a) in the case of any assessee— [(i) any interest (not being interest on a loan issued for public subscription before the 1st day of April, 1938), royalty, fees for technical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable,— (A) outside India; or (B) in India to a non-resident, not being