VINOD KUMAR MITTAL,BEAWAR vs. ITO, AJMER

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

deemed dividend under sec. 2(22)(e) of the I.T.Act, 1961. (ii) Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts of the case by not appreciating the facts that the transactions entered into are in the nature of Shri Vinod Kumar Mittal vs ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ajmer current accommodation adjustments accounts/trade advances

DEEPAK VEGPRO (P) LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

disallowance of Rs. 70 lacs by invoking the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act. The order of the AO (relevant text) has been reproduced above for the sake of convenience. The addition of Rs. 70 lacs on account of deemed dividend

UDAI KANT MISHRA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

deemed dividend, unexplained jewellery, interest disallowance under section 14A. Separately, penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s 271(1)(c). 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 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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, KOTA

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 29.12.2012. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2013. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 20.12.2013. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2014. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

deemed dividend, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable in law. He has submitted that assessee filed the original return of income on 20.12.2013. The time limit for service of notice u/s 143(2) for the relevant AY was upto 30.09.2014. No notice was issued to the assessee before this date. Thus, the assessment proceedings for the year

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

M/S. MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. JAIPUR,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

dividend income claimed as exempt by the assessee. The Therefore, disallowance on account of administrative expenses under Rule 8D(iii) is hereby restricted to the extent of exempt income so claimed by the assessee. In the result, the ground of appeal is partly allowed. 10. In ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.46

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

dividend income of Rs. 36,68,377/- was disclosed by the assessee on its investment made in equities/MF. The investment of the assessee in the equities/MF as on 31.03.2016 was of Rs. 1,49,61,000/- and Rs. 6,47,45,423/- as on 31.03.2017. Amount of Rs. 1.20 lacs were disallowed by the assessee

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

disallowed u/s 14A / Rule 8 D Thus in view of above, it is evidently clear that the investment made in the share capital of various companies was with a sole motive of obtaining controlling interest in them, earing of any dividend or capital gain as a motive was never in sight, and therefore such strategic investment were outside the scope