ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RATAN KANWAR RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and

disallowing set off of losses of company CML and made additions - High Court by impugned order held that since Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessments under section 153A relying on some information not unearthed during search, assessment orders so passed were not sustainable in law - Whether Special Leave Petition filed against impugned order was to be granted - Held, yes [Para

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

158B and 132, of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nUndisclosed investments (Unaccounted purchases) - Block periods 1-4-1985 to\n20-3-1996 - Search and seizures proceedings were conducted at assessee's\npremises and notice under section 158BC(c) was issued to it - Assessing Officer\nbased upon materials seized framed block assessment and made addition on\naccount of excess of unaccounted

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

Section 69C of the I.T. Act, 1961 Addition of Rs. 2,25,68,601/’’- It is also noted that the ld. CIT(A) has concised the observation in respect of the issue as under:- Facts as summarized from the order of AO. ’’3. The AO had information from the investigation wing Mumbai that there are certain entities controlled by Shri

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

disallowed the claim of interest expenses having regard to the narrower scope of deductions eligible under section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to interfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority." The onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the interest expenditure for the borrowed

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

disallowed the claim of interest expenses having regard to the\nnarrower scope of deductions eligible under section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

disallowed the claim of interest expenses having regard to the\nnarrower scope of deductions eligible under section 57 (iii) of the Act. We thus decline to\ninterfere with the action of the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority.\"\nThe onus is on the appellant to show one-to-one matching and prove that the\ninterest expenditure for the borrowed

M/S SILVER AND ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

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

disallowance of Rs. 12,384/- on account of delay in deposition of ESI & PF. Simultaneously, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB were initiated by issuance of notice on 23.12.2016. Subsequently, penalty was imposed u/s 271AAB(1)(a) of the Act at the rate of 10% amounting to Rs. 2,65,05,090/- vide order dated 24.4.2017. Aggrieved with the order, the assessee

SMT. SEEMA MUNDRA,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance of Rs. 7,34,042/- from interest a/c. 3. That without prejudice to GOA 1 and 2 above the ld. CIT(A) further erred in not considering that interest Rs. 2,98,920/- is already charged from Pawan Mundra and therefore, addition, if any should be Rs. 4,35,122/- (734042 – 298920) only with corresponding relief in Pawan Mundra