SMT. MANJU GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

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

Deemed Dividend”. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions, we examined the ledger account of the subsidiary company in the books of the assessee company, copy of which is filed at page-7 of the PB, which reveals that initially the assessee company has taken amount from the subsidiary company which was repaid and thereafter

M/S SKYWAYS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR

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

Deemed Dividend”. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions, we examined the ledger account of the subsidiary company in the books of the assessee company, copy of which is filed at page-7 of the PB, which reveals that initially the assessee company has taken amount from the subsidiary company which was repaid and thereafter

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

Deemed Dividend”. Considering the facts of the case in the light of above decisions, we examined the ledger account of the subsidiary company in the books of the assessee company, copy of which is filed at page-7 of the PB, which reveals that initially the assessee company has taken amount from the subsidiary company which was repaid and thereafter

M/S SOMA BLOCK PRINTS (P) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

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

deemed to be the income of the assessee. There is a difference in the value of investment amounting to Rs.52,12,917/- as determined by valuation report dated 21.07.2015 (Rs. 85,54,230/-) and as declared by the assessee (Rs.33,41,313/-). Therefore the assessee has not recorded the entire value of investment made as the valuation done by valuation

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)

dividend and tax free interest, no part of expenditure appears to have been made towards the investment activity as emerging from the material. According to the respondent, the total investment from the huge surplus is comparatively small and investment made was effortless, without any burden of administrative expenses. In view of fact that no expenditure was incurred for earning exempted

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

dividend income then the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. Accordingly, we modify the orders of the authorities below on this issue and sustained the disallowance on account of interest expenditure U/s 14A of the Act. Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 8. In the ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal

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

dividend income then the said disallowance made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. Accordingly, we modify the orders of the authorities below on this issue and sustained the disallowance on account of interest expenditure U/s 14A of the Act. Bimal Roy Soni, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 8. In the ground No. 2 of the assessee’s appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

dividend income. Accordingly in any case even considering the\nview of ld. PCIT of AO making disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii), there is no\nerror in the order of FAO, as in such situation, if at all, any disallowance\nis to be made that can be made only u/s 36(1)(iii) and there is no question\nof any disallowance

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

dividend income of Rs.2,32,25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been held as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The AO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of Rs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained

M/S RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD.,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated\nhereinabove

dividend income of\nRs.2,32,25,630/- from shares. The assessee explained that the shares have been\nheld as stock in trade and therefore no disallowance u/s 14A can be made. The\nAO, however, rejected the explanation of the assessee and made disallowance of\nRs.71,75,575/- u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2). The same was sustained

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

dividend 2.2 ITO v/s Chitalia Builders 90 CCH 405(Guj) it has been held that Insofar as the deletion of addition is concerned, we find that the A.O was not confronted 28 Kath Brothers vs. ACIT with any defects in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. The A.O has not given any valid reasons for not accepting

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

disallowed.\n6. That, the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate the fact that that the\namount of Rs. 13,92,83,709/- on which TDS was deducted is not entirely\nthe amount of payment of foreign interest. Because out of Rs.\n13,92,83,709/-, an amount of Rs 11,70,05,416 was paid as a Fees for\nTechnical Services

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)

deemed to have always applied in a case where exempt income has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and 18 Girnar Software Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such exempt income. 5. This amendment will take effect from

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, ALWAR, ALWAR vs. ALWAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH LTD., ALWAR

In the result, the Cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

dividend received from RCDF by incorrectly holding that assessee has not submitted sufficient evidence for claim of said deduction. 2. The assessee craves right to add, alter, amend, and modify any of the ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. The brief facts as culled out from the records are that the case

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)

dividend or investment in shares during the year under consideration. It is a true fact that once exempt income is not earned then no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs Kohinoor Project Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it is mentioned that Section 14A would

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

deemed\nincome u/s 115JB by making adjustment as per explanation 1(f) of\nsection 115JB(2), as per the AO.\n\n5.\nThe ld. CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail and after\nexamination of various facts and issues under consideration and by giving\ndetailed reasoning, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made u/s\n14A mainly

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. GVK JAIPUR EXPRESSWAY PVT LTD, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for the years [A

deemed\nincome u/s 115JB by making adjustment as per explanation 1(f) of\nsection 115JB(2), as per the AO.\n\n5. The ld. CIT(A) has considered the issue in detail and after\nexamination of various facts and issues under consideration and by giving\ndetailed reasoning, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made u/s\n14A mainly

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)

deem fit in the interest of justice. 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The Bench Noted that the assessee for condonation of delay of 443 days has merit because of their business premises were under Bank possession and therefore, they were not in receipt of the communication and therefore, there

ASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

dividend. income computed on reasonable\nbasis would be just (A.Y 2006-07).In Vipin Malik Vs.ACIT\n11\nITA243/JP/2023\nASSOCIATED SOAPSTONE DISTRIBUTING CO. PVT LTD. VS Pr.CIT-2, JAIPUR\n[2017] 88 taxmann.com 415 (Delhi Trib.)/[2016] 45 ITR(T)\n589 (Delhi Trib.)Where Hon'ble ITAT Delhi held that\ndisallowance of expenditure Exempt income-No disallowance\nwas made