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)

14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Rules. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. 3. Before us, the ld. A/R of the assessee submitted his written submissions as under :- “ In the submitted that the case of the Appellant was selected for Complete Scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme 2019 and a notice 5 Girnar Software

CASTAMET WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,KHARWA vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIPUR

14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satisfied with the basis of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Ld.AO taken a plausible view on allowability of the same which is legally allowed as it is usual that interest free funds would be first

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. DCIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

M/S. CHAMBAL FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

depreciation disallowed on catalyst. 10. This ground of the Revenue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 461 & 575/JP/2015 for the A.Y. 2011-12 at page 12 para 21 as under :- “21. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties, perused the material available on the record and the earlier

COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-VI, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

depreciation on CPP was allowed by the AO while framing the assessment under Section 143(3) after conscious consideration of the material on record. It is not even the case of the Revenue that the formation of the belief regarding the escapement of the assessment by the AO is based on any new material coming on record. Apparently, the formation

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

14A - As decided in Era\nInfrastructure (India) Ltd. [2022 (7) TMI 1093 - DELHI HIGH COURT]Amendment to\nsection 14A of the Act which is for removal of doubts cannot be presumed to be\nretrospective.\n• Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd.\n(2022) 7 TMI 1093:Whether ITAT erred in relying

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. KEDIA BUILDERS AND COLONIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

3), Kolkata that they are Directors in the various companies which is controlled & managed by Mr. Anjani Banka. Statement of Mr. Anjani Banka was also recorded by the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-2(3), Kolkata on 29.03.2014 wherein he accepted that he is engaged in providing accommodation entries in form of share capital, unsecured loan, LTCG etc and to facilitate

JAIPUR TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition

JAIPUR TELECOM PVT. LTD,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JPR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

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

14A -Held, yes -Whether this by no stretch of imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' - Held, yes - Whether further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted and how ingredient of sub-section (9) of section 270A was satisfied, mere reference to word 'misreporting' by revenue in penalty order to deny immunity from imposition

M/S GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PRIVATE LIMITED,TELANGANA vs. PCIT 2, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

depreciation was examined u/s 143(3), thus the\naction of ld PCIT (Admin) in raising doubts to the settled issue is an attempt to\nunsettle the past history and such direction deserves to be struck down.\n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ld. PCIT (Admin) has\ngrossly erred in holding the assessment order as erroneous

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)

sections (4) to (10) and as increased by the applicable surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, calculated in the manner provided therein, shall be further increased by an additional surcharge, for the purposes of the Union, to be called the “Health and Education Cess on income-tax”, calculated at the rate of four per cent of such income

MAYUR GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JAIPUR , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

3. Cheminvest Ltd. vs. CIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 118 8-13 Delhi HC 4. Pappu Singh Rajpurohit vs. AO in IT(IT) A No. 02& 14-43 03/JP/2023 dated 17.04.2023 7. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that when there is no income which is claimed as exempt income there cannot be any disallowance u/s. 14A

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

14A.(AO Pg 5-6 ) 3 Investment in AOPs (PB 3,82,10,700/- The investment in the AOP is 41) made to obtain the liquor contract in Rajasthan. The AOP was obtaining liquor [Initial investment contract in earlier years and in as such, was commercial F.Y 2012-13 investment only. (A.Y 2013-14)] Total

GEETANJALI HOTELS & PROMOTERS PVT LTD,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

14A.(AO Pg 5-6 ) 3 Investment in AOPs (PB 3,82,10,700/- The investment in the AOP is 41) made to obtain the liquor contract in Rajasthan. The AOP was obtaining liquor [Initial investment contract in earlier years and in as such, was commercial F.Y 2012-13 investment only. (A.Y 2013-14)] Total

TIJARIA POLYPIPES LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRLCE 4, JAIPUR

14A of I.T. Act, 1961. Subsequently considering information received by\nId. AO from ITO (Inv.), Unit-1 and AIU, Kolkata, the assessment was reopened by\nissue of notice u/s 148 dated 18.03.2019, in response to which the assessee filed\nreturn of income and requested for supply of reasons recorded, which were\nprovided to the assessee vide letter dated

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 14A of the I.T.Act. The assessee's plea that overdraft is its own money is not acceptable as FDRs were used as security for Over Draft and the source of investment was Over Draft and not its own money. e.g. If an assessee has placed house property as security for taking overdraft would we allow interest expenses against income

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BEAWAR vs. PR.CIT, , UDAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 04/Jp/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Cement Limited, Cuke Pr.Cit, Vs. Bangur Nagar, Post Box No. 33, Udaipur. Beawar. Pan No.: Aaccs 8796 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Dilip Desai (Ca) Shri Vijay Shah (Ca) Shri Mohit Choudhary (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri B.K. Gupta (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 23/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, Udaipur Dated 03.02.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – Udaipur, (Here- In- After Referred To As Ld. Pr. Cit) Was Not Justified In Initiating Proceedings U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Since The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

section 263 by the Commissioner proper and valid. [Para 16] (c) In the case of Jeevan Investment & Finance (P.) ltd. Vs CIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 552 (Bombay], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that: " ..... merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case

ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE,JAIPUR vs. JCIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

14A of the Act.” The Rule of Consistency mandatorily requires that in absence of any material change in the facts and circumstances, the earlier decision rendered by the ITAT in the case of the same assessee must be followed. Kindly refer para-38 of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v/s DCIT & Anr. (2017) 151 DTR 0089 (SC) (DPBIII